You would think a simple condemnation of antisemitism would be an easy thing for House Democrats to do. You’d be wrong. Like the UK’s Labour Party, the Social Justice Warrior rot has crept into the Democrats to the point where they are institutionally hostile to Israel and Jews. The need for Muslim votes outweighs forthright condemnation of one of the world’s oldest (and deadliest) prejudices.
So enjoy a LinkSwarm while you wait for the blood-red tide of anarchy to be loosed on the world:
The Democratic Party Has Normalized Anti-Semitism: “No educated human believes [Democratic Rep. Ilhan] Omar inadvertently accused “Benjamin”-grubbing Rootless Cosmopolitans of hypnotizing the world for their evil. These are long-standing, conspiratorial attacks on the Jewish people, used by anti-Semites on right and left, and popular throughout the Islamic world.” (Hat tip: Sean Davis on Twitter.)
And the hits keep coming! New York Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for and end to the U.S.-Israel special relationship. I’m sure such a position could never negatively impact reelection chances for a congresswoman representing New York City…
“Federal judge temporarily blocks Texas from purging voters in citizenship review. U.S. District Judge Fred Biery called the review “ham-handed” and ordered counties not to remove any voters from the rolls without his approval and “a conclusive showing that the person is ineligible to vote.” I know it will shock you to learn that Biery is a Clinton appointee. Can’t purge those precious illegal alien votes for Democrats off the rolls…
“Last week a new pro-illegal alien organization launched in the Lone Star State: Texans for Economic Growth. The group, which appears to contain more chambers of commerce than actual businesses, is directly tied to Partnership for a New American Economy, a “comprehensive immigration reform” (pro-amnesty) organization headed by two billionaires, the anti-gun former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch; a host of other media elites; big business CEOs; and mayors.” They oppose ending state subsidies for illegal aliens.
Is Pakistan finally doing something about terrorism? “Pakistan intensified its crackdown against Islamist militants on Thursday, with the government announcing it had taken control of 182 religious schools and detained more than 100 people as part of its push against banned groups.” Don’t believe it. As sure as the heat is off, expect those same militants to be released and go right back on the ISI payroll…
Saying "the USSR did not built its economy up through Indigenous genocide, stolen lands, and extensive use of slave labour" is like saying "At least Hitler came to power without antisemitism and violence."
It’s ten years since Obama’s Russian reset. “By the time Trump took office, just over two years ago, a greatly emboldened Russia had effectively digested Crimea, was engaged on a rapidly expanding scale in joint military exercises with China, was energetically cultivating such clients in the Western Hemisphere as the USSR’s old comrade Cuba and Putin’s pals in Venezuela, and was militarily entrenched in Syria as a mainstay of the Assad regime.”
Crenshaw might be the congressional GOP’s best answer to AOC, but he decidedly doesn’t want to be seen as a Republican version of the 29-year-old New York Democrat, who is “always trying to embrace radicalism,” he told me during a recent interview in his new office on the fourth floor of the Cannon House Office Building. He wants to take his party in a more traditional—not radical—direction. “We have to make conservatism cool and exciting again,” is how he described his mission in politics when I first met him a year ago. “We have to bring back that Reagan optimism.”
Crenshaw’s combination of traditional conservatism and rising popularity put him in an unusual position in Congress. He describes himself as a “plain old conservative”—he supports free trade, wants to reform Medicare and Social Security, and thinks American troops should stay in Afghanistan (where an IED took one of the veteran’s eyes) as long as they’re needed to prevent another 9/11. That puts him at odds with Trump, whom Crenshaw has been unafraid to criticize, going so far as to call his rhetoric “insane” and “hateful” during the 2016 presidential campaign. But Crenshaw is more “Sometimes Trump” than “Never Trump.” He is not pushing for a 2020 Republican primary challenge and is not trying to write off Trump’s wing of the party—hence, his warm reception at CPAC. In fact, Crenshaw has praised the president for his policies on immigration, even recently voting in support of Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build a border wall, a move many conservatives opposed.
Ignore the “dares to take on Trump” angle of the article. Crenshaw’s biggest advantage is a temperament almost completely opposite from Trump’s, which voters may look for in 2024.
Former Texas congressman Ralph Hall died at age 95. Hall was a conservative Democrat who endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2000, then switched to the GOP in 2004, one of the last conservative Democratic office holders to leave the party. “Hall had always been a thorn in Democrats’ side even before he changed parties. In 1985, he voted ‘present’ rather than support then-Speaker Thomas ‘Tip’ O’Neill’s, D-Mass., reelection. ”
Two years ago, Wonder Woman proved a female-led superhero movie could reach the highest levels of the genre, with Gal Gadot proving robust and redoubtable, yet also charming and feminine. I spent Captain Marvel waiting for Gadot. What I got was Brie Larson: charmless, humorless, a character so without texture that she might as well be made out of aluminum.
Captain Marvel might be the first blockbuster movie whose animating idea is fear. Every page of the script betrays terror of what people might say about the film on social media. Give Carol Danvers a love interest? Eek! No, women can’t be defined by the men in their lives! Make her vulnerable? OMG, no, that’s crazy. Feminine? What century are you from if you think females should be feminine? Toward the end of the movie, when a villain preparing for an epic confrontation with Carol, the fighter pilot turned Superwoman, chides her that she will fail because she can’t control her emotions, there is no tension whatsoever. We’ve just spent two hours watching her be utterly unfazed by anything. Giving Carol actual emotions would, of course, lead to at least 27 people calling the film misogynist on Twitter, and directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck are petrified of that.
Just to be completely, unerringly, let’s-bubble-wrap-the-universe safe, Boden and Fleck decided to make Danvers stronger than strong, fiercer than fierce, braver than brave. Larson spends the entire movie being insouciant, kicking butt, delivering her lines in an I-got-this monotone and staring down everything with a Blue Steel gaze of supreme confidence. Superheroes are defined by their limitations — Superman’s Kryptonite, Batman’s mortality — but Captain Marvel is just an invincible bore. The screenplay by Boden, Fleck, and Geneva Robertson-Dworet, with a story by the three of them plus Nicole Perlman and Meg LeFauve, presents us with Brie Larson’s Carol being amazingly strong and resilient at the beginning, middle, and end. This isn’t an arc, it’s a straight line.
“Ilhan Omar Withdraws Support From Bill To Save The Earth After Learning That’s Where Israel Is.” “When I made the Green New Deal, I thought weather like storms and earthquakes were all caused by climate change, but now I’ve learned from Representative Omar that lots of that is actually from Jewish-controlled weather machines.”
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…
Several years ago, an SSC reader made an r/slatestarcodex subreddit for discussion of blog posts here and related topics. As per the usual process, the topics that generated the strongest emotions – Trump, gender, race, the communist menace, the fascist menace, etc – started taking over. The moderators (and I had been added as an honorary mod at the time) decreed that all discussion of these topics should be corralled into one thread so that nobody had to read them unless they really wanted to. This achieved its desired goal: most of the subreddit went back to being about cognitive science and medicine and other less-polarizing stuff.
Unexpectedly, the restriction to one thread kick-started the culture war discussions rather than toning them down. The thread started getting thousands of comments per week, some from people who had never even heard of this blog and had just wandered in from elsewhere on Reddit. It became its own community, with different norms and different members from the rest of the board.
I expected this to go badly. It kind of did; no politics discussion area ever goes really well. There were some of the usual flame wars, point-scoring, and fanatics. I will be honest and admit I rarely read the thread myself.
But in between all of that, there was some really impressive analysis, some good discussion, and even a few changed minds. Some testimonials from participants:
For all its awfulness there really is something special about the CW thread. There are conversations that have happened there that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Someone mentioned its accidental brilliance and I think that’s right—it catches a wonderful conversational quality I’ve never seen on the Internet, and I’ve been on the Internet since the 90s – werttrew
I feel that, while practically ever criticism of the CW thread I have ever read is true, it is still the best and most civil culture war-related forum for conversation I have seen. And I find the best-of roundup an absolute must-read every week – yrrosimyarin
The Culture War Roundup threads were blessedly neutral ground for people to test their premises and moral intuitions against a gauntlet of (sometimes-forced!) kindness and charity. There was no guarantee that your opinion would carry the day, but if you put in the effort, you could be assured a fair reading and cracking debate. Very little was solved, but I’m not sure that was really the point. The CWRs were a place to broaden your understanding of a given topic by an iterative process of “Yes, but…” and for a place that boasted more than 15,000 participants, shockingly little drama ensued. That was the /r/slatestarcodex CWRs at their best, and that’s the way we hope they will be remembered by the majority of people who participated in them. – rwkasten
What happened was the same thing that happens any time unfettered free speech shows up on the Internet: Social Justice Warriors showed up to ruin it:
This post is called “RIP Culture War Thread”, so you may have already guessed things went south. What happened? The short version is: a bunch of people harassed and threatened me for my role in hosting it, I had a nervous breakdown, and I asked the moderators to get rid of it.
Snip.
So let me tell you about my experience hosting the Culture War thread.
(“hosting” isn’t entirely accurate. The Culture War thread was hosted on the r/slatestarcodex subreddit, which I did not create and do not own. I am an honorary moderator of that subreddit, but aside from the very occasional quick action against spam nobody else caught, I do not actively play a part in its moderation. Still, people correctly determined that I was probably the weakest link, and chose me as the target.)
People settled on a narrative. The Culture War thread was made up entirely of homophobic transphobic alt-right neo-Nazis. I freely admit there were people who were against homosexuality in the thread (according to my survey, 13%), people who opposed using trans people’s preferred pronouns (according to my survey, 9%), people who identified as alt-right (7%), and a single person who identified as a neo-Nazi (who as far as I know never posted about it). Less outrageous ideas were proportionally more popular: people who were mostly feminists but thought there were differences between male and female brains, people who supported the fight against racial discrimination but thought could be genetic differences between races. All these people definitely existed, some of them in droves. All of them had the right to speak; sometimes I sympathized with some of their points. If this had been the complaint, I would have admitted to it right away. If the New York Times can’t avoid attracting these people to its comment section, no way r/ssc is going to manage it.
But instead it was always that the the thread was “dominated by” or “only had” or “was an echo chamber for” homophobic transphobic alt-right neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that the subreddit was dominated by homophobic etc neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that the SSC community was dominated by homophobic etc neo-Nazis, which always grew into the claim that I personally was a homophobic etc neo-Nazi of them all. I am a pro-gay Jew who has dated trans people and votes pretty much straight Democrat. I lost distant family in the Holocaust. You can imagine how much fun this was for me.
People would message me on Twitter to shame me for my Nazism. People who linked my blog on social media would get replies from people “educating” them that they were supporting Nazism, or asking them to justify why they thought it was appropriate to share Nazi sites. I wrote a silly blog post about mathematics and corn-eating. It reached the front page of a math subreddit and got a lot of upvotes. Somebody found it, asked if people knew that the blog post about corn was from a pro-alt-right neo-Nazi site that tolerated racists and sexists. There was a big argument in the comments about whether it should ever be acceptable to link to or read my website. Any further conversation about math and corn was abandoned. This kept happening, to the point where I wouldn’t even read Reddit discussions of my work anymore. The New York Times already has a reputation, but for some people this was all they’d heard about me.
Some people started an article about me on a left-wing wiki that listed the most offensive things I have ever said, and the most offensive things that have ever been said by anyone on the SSC subreddit and CW thread over its three years of activity, all presented in the most damning context possible; it started steadily rising in the Google search results for my name. A subreddit devoted to insulting and mocking me personally and Culture War thread participants in general got started; it now has over 2,000 readers. People started threatening to use my bad reputation to discredit the communities I was in and the causes I cared about most.
Some people found my real name and started posting it on Twitter. Some people made entire accounts devoted to doxxing me in Twitter discussions whenever an opportunity came up. A few people just messaged me letting me know they knew my real name and reminding me that they could do this if they wanted to.
Some people started messaging my real-life friends, telling them to stop being friends with me because I supported racists and sexists and Nazis. Somebody posted a monetary reward for information that could be used to discredit me.
One person called the clinic where I worked, pretended to be a patient, and tried to get me fired.
Read the whole thing.
Speaking of free speech, Gab has unveiled Dissenter, an online forum dedication to free debate. I’m not sure they’ve figure out the format yet, but you might want to take a look.
I still plan on doing a full clown car update Monday, but enough news has popped to update the four names who just announced they’re not running for President.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he won’t run for president in 2020, removing a prominent name from an already crowded field of candidates looking to challenge Donald Trump.
Bloomberg, 77, said he would put his resources into many of the initiatives he’s already involved in, including helping the country transition to renewable energy.
Evidently Bloomberg figured out that being rich and only the second most unpopular New York City mayor in recent memory wasn’t enough to push him over the top.
Know who else isn’t running? Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley: “Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley announced on Tuesday morning that he won’t run for president in 2020, saying he’ll have the biggest impact in the Senate.” Yes, an incumbent senator does usually command more respect than a guy who came in tenth in a Presidential primary.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, a confidante of former President Barack Obama and a figure of scorn among congressional Republicans, will not run for president in 2020.
Holder said in a Washington Post op-ed Monday morning that he will instead continue his work, with Obama, on an anti-gerrymandering effort aimed at making districts for the House more competitive, ahead of fast-approaching post-2020 rounds of political line-drawing.
And finally Granny Death, the Hildabeast, the Queen of Mean, Felonia von Pantsuit, Shillary Killary Hillary, the Crooked Clinton herself, will not run for President in 2020.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she’s not running for president again.
“I’m not running,” the 2016 Democratic nominee told News 12 Westchester. But Clinton added that she would continue “working and speaking and standing up for what I believe.”
“I want to be sure that people understand I’m going to keep speaking out,” Clinton told the local news network. “I’m not going anywhere.”
Except to the ash-heap of history. And possibly prison.
Hickenlooper is In, Inslee is more officially In, and the B team (Biden, Bloomberg and Beto) are still Hamleting. It’s your Democratic Presidential Clown Car Update!
The Washington Post plays the answer top Google questions about the candidates game. Got a chuckle out of this on Pete Buttigieg: “Not only would he be the youngest person ever elected president, he would also be both the first gay president and the first president who liked University of Notre Dame athletics.”
538 polls which candidate early primary state Democratic activists are considering backing. Finally, a poll Kamala Harris comes out on top of! She’s followed by Booker, Brown, Warren, Klobuchar, Biden and Sanders. Biggest drop between November and February? O’Rourke, whose support halved.
Colorado Senator Michael Bennet: Leaning Toward In. He says people are tired of “rage Olympics,” applauded President Donald Trump’s “America will never be a socialist country” line and says Medicare for all is a pipe-dream. It will be interesting to see if that message gets any traction in a crowed field…
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown: Likely In. “U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is starting the final leg of his tour of the early presidential primary and caucus states. As he visits South Carolina, Brown says he’s learned a lot as he gets closer to making a decision on a possible presidential run.” Decision? If you’re touring Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, you’ve already decided to get in…
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg: In. Twitter. Facebook. With all the attention on Iowa, New hampshire and Couth Carolina, Buttigieg is campaigning at…Scripps College in Claremont, California. I actually had to look that up. It’s part of the Los Angeles sprawl, just west of Rancho Cucamonga…
Former San Antonio Mayor and Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro: In. Twitter. Facebook. Said he’s going to run on education, including pre-K funding. (Tiny problem: It doesn’t work. But don’t expect any of Castro’s rivals to voice that heretical thought…)
Former First Lady, New York Senator, Secretary of State and losing 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Probably not. But check out this ABC news headline: “Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and other 2020 hopefuls honor march on Selma”
You go to Dewitt, Tipton, Glenwood, Denison, Alba, Knoxville, Perry, Grimes and nine other places this year alone—emphasizing the small Iowa towns that seldom see a presidential candidate. You take out an ad during the Super Bowl two years before the Iowa caucuses — an unheard-of extravagance that no one dared try before. You open six campaign offices in Iowa — before your better-known rivals have opened even one. You win the endorsement of four county central Democratic committees in Iowa — long before the top-tier candidates have lassoed any.
And you make 24 campaign trips to Iowa and another 14 to New Hampshire, the sites of the first two political tests of the 2020 campaign, states that pride themselves on being the political equivalent of the Cheers bar — places where, the civic folklore says, everyone knows your name.
Everyone in the political world knows your name, unless, of course, your name is John Delaney.
Former Tallahassee Mayor and failed Florida Senate candidate Andrew Gillum: Out.
California Senator Kamala Harris: In. Twitter. Facebook. Harris wants all the California Benjamins. Politico says she’s she’s just too awesome at connecting emotionally with voters to offer actual details or plans. “She’s been noncommittal or vague on a range of issues.” One plan floated: legalizing prostitution. My libertarian half both agrees and points out that it’s a state level issue, and thus nothing the President can or should affect. That WaPo Google answer bit above offers this tidbit: “Her sister is Maya Harris, a former adviser to the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton who now acts as a political analyst for MSNBC.” It’s incest all the way down…
Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper: In. Website. Twitter. Announced this morning. His kickoff rally is in Denver March 7. Upgrade over leaning toward in.
Former Texas Representative and failed Senatorial candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke: Maybe. He’s made up his mind! But he’s not telling us. Yet. More from The Dallas Morning News, if you can get past the beg blocker.
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Constitutionally ineligible to run in 2020.
Can @CNN and @BernieSanders explain why these democratic employees are planted in the audience and presented to us as anything but what their actual jobs are? pic.twitter.com/QJyht7B5nv
California Representative Eric Swalwell: Leaning Toward In. He’s in New Hampshire. Evidently what Swalwell learned from the 2016 Presidential election is that the path to the White House is tweeting crazy shit.
U.S.-backed forces in Syria are closing in on the last patch of Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate in Syria.
Syrian Democratic Force spokesman Mustafa Bali said Saturday three SDF soldiers have been wounded. Militants have been killed, he said, but he could not confirm a number.
“Fighting continues and heavy weapons are being used,” Bali said. “SDF forces have advanced significantly and have moved into Baghuz. Militants are still planting and using IEDs and bombs are exploding as the SDF forces are advancing. There is also heavy street fighting.”
The advance on the terror group’s remaining fighters began late Friday.
The final assault, announced on Twitter by Syrian Democratic Force spokesman Mustafa Bali, began just a day after the lead commander said the northeast Syrian village of Baghuz would be liberated within a week.
Remember that Livemap image that showed no more Islamic State-held territory left in Baghuz?
Well, this is what it looks like now:
Some of the confusion stems from the American media’s apparent complete disinterest in covering the end of the Islamic State, meaning that reporting on the conflict tends to vary between spotty and distant to non-existent. Part of the pause in the final assault was apparently to evacuate remaining civilians.
Hopefully the final final assault is no underway, and the utter destruction of the last of the Hajin/Baghuz pocket is underway.
— Struggle Of Kurds 🦅 (@1StrugleOfKurds) March 2, 2019
Heavy fighting continues at outskirts of #Baghouz at the moment. #SDF and #YPG–#YPJ made a remarkable progress since yesterday evening, recaptured many positions from #ISIS terrorists.#DefeatDaesh.
— Struggle Of Kurds 🦅 (@1StrugleOfKurds) March 2, 2019
If you wonder how many great men & women people of Kobanî gave in the fight to #DefeatDaesh. This is Kobanî cemetary. These are the graves of the fallen heroes & heroines. They fell on behalf of ALL the world 🌹Şehîdên Me Rûmeta Me Ne🌹 pic.twitter.com/EPqhfePEBx
India and Pakistan seem to be cooling off slightly, and President Donald Trump prefers no deal to a bad deal with North Korea. So enjoy a Friday LinkSwarm:
“Previously Deported Illegal Alien Convicted of Child Rape After Release by Sanctuary City.”
Speaking of planes, Pakistan is swearing up and down that India shoot down an F-16…because the terms of the U.S. sale bar them from being used for offense.
“This is a nuanced discussion,” said Senator Kamala Harris, who voted against the act. “I mean, should we or shouldn’t we murder babies? It’s not really cut and dry for many Americans. What if the baby is inconvenient? What if the mother has already decided it’s a nuisance and might interfere with her school or work? What then?”
Borepatch co-blogger ASM826 calls a tool company to get a screwdriver tip replaced, ends up talking two hours with the owner who was a marine in the battle of Iwo Jima.
Evidently the Indian Air Force staged several mock runs to stress Pakistan’s air force before the actual strike.
Not buying all the points here, but the analysis of differing Pakistani and Indian nuclear strategy is interesting:
The Pakistani military’s fear is that the Indian army has an overwhelming advantage, in terms of men and tanks, so may mount a “Cold Start” conventional attack that quickly could seize the major Pakistani city of Lahore and effectively win a war without employing nuclear weapons. As a consequence, whereas India, initially at least, developed strategic nuclear weapons designed to reach all of Pakistan, the latter’s military switched to tactical nuclear weapons to stop dead any Cold Start Doctrine adventure.
But how easy would it be to halt Indian tank divisions pouring across the desert in the flat border region south of the mountainous terrain of Kashmir, where the current action is taking place? It may sound that I have strange friends, but I know people who have “run the numbers” on this. The answer is that it would take more than 20 Pakistani nuclear weapons to blunt an Indian attack.
The conventional wisdom is, or certainly was, that nuclear weapons create a balance of terror between rivals. That logic may have applied in the days of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union, but it no longer is valid — at least between India and Pakistan.
In both India and Pakistan, people are asking the important questions: Will the war interfere with the Cricket World Cup? In fact, Pakistan’s president Imran Khan is a former cricketer.
In a follow-up to yesterday’s story, Pakistan claims it shot down two Indian aircraft, though India says Pakistan only shot down one, and that India shot down a Pakistani aircraft. The Indian plane lost is reportedly a MiG 21, a plane so old it was used in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, AKA the Bangladeshi Liberation War. Pakistan has closed off its airspace to all commercial flights and India has instituted a more limited ban on its northern airspace.
Pakistani PM Imran Khan is calling for talks. Meanwhile, significant portions of India’s population seem positively giddy over India’s airstrikes against the Jaish-e-Mohammad camp. Indian PM Narendra Modi’s tough stance towards Pakistan seems to be boosting his chances in the forthcoming April-May general elections.
Here’s the BBC News live feed. Local news sources in both India and Pakistan seem too biased to trust.
Pakistan has been playing its double game of backing Islamic terrorists while denying it’s doing so for a long, long time. They’ve been doing the same with the Taliban in Afghanistan for three decades. It would be nice if they could be dissuaded from continuing this course of action short of full-scale war.
