Discussion thread

April 19, 2022 • 8:15 am

Once again, because I’m low on both energy and topics to write about, I’ll turn a post over to the readers, and hope I get get some discussion going. I’ll start by suggesting two topics, both of which involve speculations, but why not? And, as usual, you can discuss whatever you want.

1.) What do you think will be the ultimate fate of Ukraine. Will they kick Russia out completely? (I think this unlikely). Or will Russia simply take over eastern Ukraine and just lay the rest to waste before abandoning it? Alternatively, will they take over the whole country, either making it part of Russia or turning it into a puppet state?

2.)  Will the Democrats lose big this November, lose small, or not lose at all?

I will, of course, be checking the comments, so I’m not ignoring you!

Re #2, here’s an excerpt (not paywalled) from a new blog post by Freddie deBoer, who favors a Leftist Democratic win):

Let me lay out two worldviews that are fervently believed by large groups of people who share the same party. Here’s worldview A:

Left-wing Democrats have pushed the party to the edge of an electoral cliff. They have hijacked the party’s debates and make extravagant policy demands, demands that cut against the preferences of huge swaths of the electorate. They refuse to compromise or meet the voters where they are. They engage in purity politics and seem to have no interest in the kind of horse-trading that is required to get what you want in Washington. Their inflammatory rhetoric and extremist ideas hamper the efforts of candidates in red and purple states, and slogans like “defund the police” are an albatross hanging around the neck of the party that will surely bring doom in November.

And here’s worldview B:

Centrist Democrats have a stranglehold on the party. They’re stodgy, uncompromising, and risk-averse. The party bends over backward to suit their needs, and yet they still constantly complain about a leftist takeover. Voters demand a bold agenda, but centrists are so afraid of risk and change that the Democrats effectively stand for nothing. The left brings a tremendous amount of energy and attention to the party and dominates among the youth, yet the party never delivers policy progress in return. By ignoring the left and the passionate young people within it in favor of obstructionist centrists, the Democrats have become a directionless, unprincipled party that can’t express to the American people what they stand for.

As you might have guessed, the gimmick here is that I think both perspectives are more or less correct.

. . . For now, we have a centrist party that appears to too many voters to scream radical slogans, and the near future seems bleak.


65 thoughts on “Discussion thread

    1. It doesn’t give any help towards answering the question of how we tell left from right but it is perhaps worth mentioning that other animals besides humans can distinguish between left and right. Dogs for example can respond correctly to commands to go left or right e.g sheep dog commands (when the dog may be at some distance) or when commanding a dog to walk to heel (when different commands will dictate which side the dog walks on). I don’t know if birds can tell left from right but I’d imagine it would be fairly easy to test (if it hasn’t been already) with some conditioning experiments with pigeons for example.

  1. 2) They will lose big. But neither A nor B are accurate or the reason for that. They will lose seats because prices are high, inflation is high, and jobs are just now recovering to pre-Covid numbers. IOW “It’s the economy, stupid.”

    The Supremes overturning Roe is the wild card that could change things. Assuming that happens, IMO the Dem paths to midterm victory consist of (1) promising and developing a workable response, bringing lots more women to the polls than expected, and/or (2) whether by their action or not, gas prices drop down to $2.50/gallon in October. That’s pretty much the only two ways they come out of this alive.

    1. I think you’re correct. Beyond the usual drubbing that the President’s party takes during the first midterm election of his term, inflation will hurt the Democrats. Many even blame it on Biden, as if the President had direct control over such things. Voters will take out their frustrations over gas prices and other rising costs on incumbent politicians. It’s likely that that Republicans will take the House and Senate, ensuring two years of gridlock until 2024, when Ceiling Cat knows what will happen.

  2. Republicans really stand for nothing but establishing a kleptocracy (a la Putin or Trumpf). They scream right wing slogans usually including the word “right” or “rights” and pass at local levels outrageously restrictive laws against various minority or victimized groups hoping eventually to do so at the national level, assuming that since they’ll be wealthy or powerful they won’t apply to them. They were once a principled right-centrist party with equally principled candidates, like Ike.

  3. Per the Democrats, I can’t believe that people are still bringing up this strawman called “defund the police.” It’s a non-issue because no Democrat is calling for the removal of funding for police departments. What they’re calling for is a *shift* in funding priorities, not taking away money.

    And what “extremist ideas”? Is a call for universal healthcare extremist? It is not. Is Build Back Better extremist? It is not. Is taxing the one percent extremist? It is not. Is making the child care tax credit permanent—or simply sending money to parents on a monthly basis, as some people are asking for—extremist? It is not. Is even the call to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances extremist? It is not. To say that any of these ideas or proposals are “extremist” is to play into the talking points of Republicans.

    I like Joe Biden, but I’d rather see Elizabeth Warren in the Oval Office.

      1. Those particular leftists (a minority, I suspect, within the broad left) should be roundly ridiculed.

        1. They are a minority, such as two recent candidates for local offices in Seattle who called explicitly for “police abolition”, and were decisively defeated. But the trouble is that they are not roundly ridiculed within the Democratic Party. Normal liberal Democrats sometimes
          mention sotto voce that they do not favor any such idiocies. but never subject them to the forceful ridicule and denunciation they warrant. Normal Democratic politicians indulge the twerps
          and poseurs of this kind in the same way that the GOP indulges its Gosars and Taylor-Greenes.
          A strong case can be made that this policy of indulging fringe Democrats is exactly why there has
          not been the blue wave that otherwise should have utterly swamped the Trump party in 2020—and why the Dems may lose the House and Senate in 2022.

          1. I’m not sure how that can be considered a causative fail of Dem elections; the GOP ignores their extremists too, and clearly, that’s not a cause of failure for them. Both parties I’m sure are using the same logic: they need to walk the balance beam between getting those people to show up at the voting booth, and not turning moderates away from the voting booth by overtly supporting them.

            Though I think it could be fairly said that the GOP is much better at optics. Both downplaying their own white supremacists and highlighting/sounding the public alarm about extremists on the other side. Thirty, forty, fifty years…the Dems have never become as good at either slinging mud or deflecting what’s slung at them.

            I think there has not been a blue wave because of structural issues. I.e. gerrymandering on the House side, and the demographics of the states on the Senate side. I’m not whining about it, just stating it to be the case. I expect these structural issues to get worse (meaning: a less representative government) before they get better, as the GOP has clearly decided that their strategy for fighting against changing demographics is to maintain their mostly unpopular platform and use gerrymandering and voting restrictions to shape the vote, rather than changing their platform to conform better to what the average citizen wants.

    1. Shifting money away from policing and toward social services is defunding the police. Voters can tell that there are fewer police around, crimes of violence and property are up, and folks in my age range are feeling like we are being staked out as prey by the defunding crowd. Different take on the issue.

      1. +1. They are trying to enact this in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Yeah, those mentally ill people who attack others? Just send a social worker, yeah, that’s the ticket. What could go wrong?

        I agree that more mental health support is needed for those people. But I also think more of them need to be in institutions. It’s either that or they are homeless. Choose your poison. No happy endings here.

        1. Good ol’ Ronnie Reagan, who didn’t believe in mental illness, closed all the institutions in California to great success😫

          1. Actually the same happened here in Australia, during the 1980s, with a left wing government. Deinstitutionalization was supported by the left because it ‘freed’ people, and by the right because it saved money.

            1. Yup. During a wave of government-ordered closing and consolidation of general hospitals in Ontario in the 1990s, which was prompting great public outcry, a psychiatrist observed wryly that no one ever protested against the closing of a provincial mental hospital.

              There is still an aggressive lobby group arguing against any kind of non-consensual treatment of people who experience reality in a different way however dysfunctional it makes, them especially among racial minorities. This probably outweighs the fiscal resistance to a return to institutional care for people with bona fide severe crippling mental disorders like schizophrenia.

    2. A call for universal healthcare is extremist by definition. What could be more extreme than providing unlimited free everything for everybody and still allowing everyone in the industry to make as much money off it as they are now? Such a system will run away with your finances unless you make some hard choices on taxation, rationing, cost controls, and abolition of private finance. And then while it is is less extremist by definition (“well, not totally universal”),it becomes so much more controversial to gored oxen that it plays politically as more extremist.

      Taxing the 1% is extremist or not extremist depending on how much tax you are talking about. Presumably they pay some tax now, so you are really talking about raising taxes on that group, not taxing them de novo. It is therefore disingenuous to say “Tax the 1%”.

      In any event, the 1% are not numerous enough to generate the taxes (after they structured their affairs to minimize the tax you got from them) you would need for universal health care, plus the other social programs that are dearer to Democrats’ hearts than even Medicare-for-All (which of course they quietly dropped during the 2020 primaries once Sen. Warren bowed out.) You would be biting down into the 10% to fund M-f-A and this group, always worried about falling off the middle-class ladder, would balk at paying a tax increase to provide more lavish free care to “those people” on Medicaid. Modern sick people are unfortunately enormously expensive and the bang for the buck of other people’s money is disappointingly low. It isn’t the best place to spend a trillion dollars.

      And so it goes. Stay away from Medicare-for-All is my foreign-informed advice to the Dems this year.

    3. Rashida Tlaib rebutted Biden’s call to fund the police during the State of the Union (and seems confused as to what police are for). To be fair she announced that she’s a member of the Working Families Party, so seemed to be disavowing the Dems.

  4. Democrats need to be on the offensive. I am starting to see their pushback on Rick Scott and his Republican national agenda of defunding Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA and his wish to raise taxes for the lower and middle class. Democrats need to hit this hard, as well as other issues, such as the Republican efforts to restrict voting.

    1. Don’t forget killing off Social Security.

      And also, we all know they want to outlaw birth control.

      Shout those from the rooftops.

  5. Regarding Ukraine, the Russians have at least temporarily pulled back from Kiev, but continue to attack there in order to let the Ukrainians know that they can take over the entire country if they want to (which they probably can’t). My guess is that Russia will prevail in the east, as they can concentrate their forces there. The earlier “pan-Ukrainian offensive” (my term) was too ambitious.

    Even though Russia will prevail in the east and will carve off territory there, they will not do so without considerable losses. This is because they were severely weakened by the pan-Ukrainian offensive and their troops are both tired and apathetic. The leadership is not not very good either, and the loss of generals makes that even worse. Once Russia holds enough territory in the east, they will be in a position to negotiate with the Ukrainian leadership and declare victory.

    I hope the Ukrainians repel Russia in the east, but I doubt they will be able to do that. We’ll see. The Ukrainian people have proven that they will not accept occupation by Russia. So, Russia will need to find a way out—eventually.

    1. My (totally amateur, uninformed) opinion: I agree Russia realizes it can’t hold the whole country without depopulating it by killing or displacing the vast majority of people (c.f. Afghanistan). But if they can control the East (frequently labelled the “industrial heartland,” and maintain the southeast (with it’s corridor from the rest of Russia to Crimea), I’d guess they’ll go for Odesa and cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea as well, thus making the rest of the country unable to ship goods in and out except by non-ships. That will leave a much diminished Ukraine, which they likely won’t see as much of a threat, and may make U much more amenable to Russian influence.
      And Putin can claim a great victory and maintain his hold on power within Russia.

      1. Totally agree. They will either take Odesa in this war, or will undertake a policy of “creeping expansionism” to Odesa at a later opportunity.

      2. OMG, apologies to PCC and all his readers: I see an apostrophe where it shouldn’t be (“it’s”–just typing too fast??) Too late to edit>

        1. I watch my own writing for this, as my iPad often adds the apostrophe even when it’s not necessary and—worse—even after I type it correctly. I blame Apple. 🙂

    2. I think Crimea is gone and I think the Eastern parts currently occupied by Russia will remain that way. Russia will ethnically cleanse the region to make sure it is full only of pro Russia people. It’ll be pretty grim.

      I think this will be the stalemate situation until Putin dies or is deposed and then the new leader will find an excuse to make peace on whatever terms will get the sanctions lifted.

  6. Freddie’s “world view B” falls apart simply because the “youth” don’t vote. They simply don’t show up, particularly in non-presidential years, to justifying pandering to their preferences. That’s why we end up with “world view A” being more or less reality.

    1. I wonder, though. If there was a young and exciting candidate that pushed their buttons, then maybe they would vote and become a highly significant force for as long as that candidacy lasted. Bernie sort of came close, but I’m talking about someone a lot more hip.

      1. Like Yang? Flopped and then finished 3rd or worse I think in NYC. Progressive ideas are popular only when not expressed by progressives it seems. ACA (Obamacare) was highly popular in pieces. Preexisting conditions? Get rid of them. Able to port insurance when changing jobs? Ditto. Extend to older children? Yes! Cover more preventative care! Absolutely! Obamacare? SOCIALISM! Although calling it ACA made it poll better.

  7. Has anyone read Will Hurd’s American Reboot? Is it too naive? I am looking for a viable moderate candidate and I don’t care what party. The Republicans mentioned so far in the press are all modeled after the former guy.

    1. The prospects of a moderate getting through the GOP primary are pretty slim right now (…IMO). Call it the ‘Trump effect,’ but their base doesn’t seem to want a McCain or Romney at the moment. Besides, Mitt doesn’t seem interested. Cheney isn’t actually moderate, she’s just anti-Trump. Besides, she’s being outmaneuvered even just in her home state – clearly not ready for a national toe-to-toe with Trump. Larry Hogan (of Maryland)? I’d definitely say he’s moderate. But no name recognition, little signaled interest, and he might be too moderate to win the GOP primary base. Susan Collins? I don’t think she gets much respect from either left or right after her SCOTUS nomination shenanigans.

      On the Dem side, probably half of 2020’s candidates would count as moderates. Harris being the obvious post-Biden choice but Klobuchar another clear moderate, along with people like Jim Webb from the 2016 pool. I’d say there’s a very good chance the Dems run a moderate in 2024; I really don’t see how they capture swing states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin (to say nothing of Georgia, Arizona, and Florida) with a leftist/progressive.

  8. What would really help in the U.S. are some demographic changes where some purple states turn blue, and where some red states turn purple. That could moderate the extremist but effective rhetoric that is the main republican platform.

  9. There’s talk of the Dems retaining control of the Senate but it’s probably just wishful thinking. Still, we have to hang on to something, right? Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot is likely to happen between now and November. Many balls are in the air.

    1. Many balls in the air and many ball-less Members of Congress😬
      Mayor Pete appeals, but not sure he’d stand a chance.

  10. As for Topic 1, I suspect we’re in for a long-drawn, grinding war, in which the Ukrainians refuse to capitulate and Putin is unable to seal the deal. With his misadventure in Ukraine, Putin is breaking the back of his military and intelligence services, isolating himself from the Russian people and even from his own oligarchs, and revealing to the world once and for all his own feet of clay. Putin plainly learned nothing from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the late ’80s.

    As for Topic 2, I expect the Democrats to take the shellacking typical for incumbent parties in midterm elections. Though we should never underestimate the ability of Donald Trump to fuck things up for the GOP — as he did in several winnable House contests in the 2018 midterms and as he did in the senate elections in 2020 (especially the pair of run-off elections held in Georgia on Jan. 5, 2021). This time around, Trump has been endorsing senate candidates of the most dubious qualifications, such as “Dr. Oz” in Pennsylvania and, in Georgia, Herschel Walker (the mentally unstable, prevaricating candidate who’s only prior accomplishment is lugging a pigskin up and down the gridiron).

    Trump’s latest senatorial endorsement went to Ohio candidate (who’s heretofore been running a distant third in primary polls), J.D. Vance — a guy who at least had something to say a few years back in his book Hillbilly Elegy, and who was an adamant never-Trumper in 2016 (as was known earlier, but has been confirmed by his recently uncovered text messages). That is, until he jumped into electoral politics as a Republican and decided his only path to victory was to work his nose as far as possible up Donald Trump’s fat ass. Vance recently won Trump’s endorsement in an “Apprentice”-style contest held at Mar-a-Lago. Next to the willingness to protect Trump from the folly of his own erratic and unlawful behavior, the thing Trump values most in other human beings is their celebrity.

    Also, there are a couple of wildcards out there for this year’s midterms, in the form of a pair of SCOTUS cases likely to be decided in June — the abortion case out of Mississippi and, out of New York, the firearms case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, in which SCOTUS appears locked & loaded to invalidate most restrictions on concealed-carry laws. These cases have the potential at least to turn swing voters off to right-wing idealogues..

    1. Trump is undoubtedly still thinking that the mere fact of his endorsement will give his candidate the win. I guess we’ll find out if that’s right. Even if he is right about his candidates in their primaries, it may help ensure that the Dem runs against the craziest, most Trumpy, GOP candidate. Except that our democracy hangs in the balance, there should be some interesting battles.

  11. The analysis created by scenarios A and B leaves out a critical component: the far-left takeover of cultural and some local institutions. Voters are not blind to the capture of academia, media, and even our public squares (unlike the days of yore, our public squares are now social media sites). So, even a moderately driven Democratic Party is starting to scare independents and even some Democrats, as people continue to worry about this ever-increasing capture that takes place outside the national political party. This also extends to some state-level and local elections and politics, where the far-left capture has resulted in undesirable changes like that to California’s education system.

    In this two-party system, I’m still a firm Democratic Party voter (unless someone like Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib was my only choice). But I don’t vote based on visceral feelings or tribalism like most voters — tribalism defined here as on the left/right or conservative/liberal/progressive spectra, as opposed to Democrat/Republican. The far-left/”progressives” are hurting the Democrats in ways far beyond what they do within the Party.

  12. It is exactly as Carbon points out. Every time a California Education Board flaunts its virtue by publicly
    announcing “‘We Reject Ideas of Natural Gifts and Talents’”, the long-range effect is to turn the US Senate (and probably the House) and many state legislatures over to the Republican Party.

    1. Not to mention the spiking crime rates in metropolitan areas, a good chunk of which can be attributed to left-aligned politicians and local attorneys’ offices changes in policing and prosecuting. And the continued insistence by the national Party and media figures that CRT-influenced curricula is totally not a thing (call it whatever you want; people know about it!).

      1. Absolutely! 50 years ago, I wondered whether the play-actors who dressed up as Viet Cong and shouted “Ho Ho HO” at demonstrations against the Vietnam war had been hired for the part by the
        pro-war establishment. Today, one cannot help wondering whether Chesa Boudin in San Francisco was hired by Mitch McConnell. But of course, Mitch didn’t have to. The charade Left provides these services free of charge, as always.

  13. Jerry, What do you think of this? “Study: Sickle Cell Mutation Driven by Pressure, Not Random Chance”.

    A novel evolutionary mechanism? Or perhaps just the result of random mutations being selected because somehow they give rise to a tendency to generate a heightened mutation rate in specific genes in response to certain selective pressures (the specific mechanism would have to be figured out, but it would still fall within the standard model of random mutations and non-random selection)?

  14. Regarding Ukraine, I’m currently reading about the Russian invasion of Finland in 1939, the beginning of what became known as the Winter War. Like the Ukrainians, the Finns were totally outnumbered but managed to retain a sense of humor. A common joke was: “Our country is so small and there are so many Russian soldiers. Where will be bury them all?”

    1. I was reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (for the third time; ironically, the second time was in 2014 during Putin’s seizure of Crimea). The early 21st century is rhyming far too much with the 1920s and 1930s.

      1. Why do you keep reading Shirer’s book (first published in 1959 or 1960)?
        Richard Evans on Shirer, in his book The Coming of the Third Reich (2004):
        “The emigre German scholar Klaus Epstein spoke for many when he pointed out that Shirer’s book presented an ‘unbelievably crude’ account of German history, making it all seem to lead up inevitably to the Nazi seizure of power. It had ‘glaring gaps’ in its coverage. It concentrated far too much on high politics, foreign policy and military events, and even in 1960 it was ‘in no way abreast of current scholarship dealing with the Nazi period’.”
        Klaus Epstein. “Shirer’s History of Nazi Germany.” The Review of Politics, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Apr., 1961), pp. 230-245

        1. William O. Shanahan: Review of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer, American Historical Review , Oct., 1962, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Oct., 1962), pp. 126- 128
          William L. Shirer’s history of the Third Reich is woefully inadequate. Even the title is defective. It is essentially a biography of Hitler, an approach that is valid since Nazism cannot be understood apart from Hitler. Unfortunately, the biographer has not deepened our understanding of Hitler and his political handiwork. Shirer’s monumental narrative does not rise above the most commonplace level of understanding.

    2. You probably already know this, but just in case or for those who don’t…

      I keep seeing people compare this to the Winter War, and the similarities are merely superficial: Russia with an overwhelming army attempting to conquer a much smaller and far less armed resistance. The big differences here are (1) terrain, (2) extreme unpreparedness in logistics and chain-of-command style on Russia’s part, and (3) competency of resistance forces (linked closely with item (1)).

      Finland may be a small country, but, by WWII, they already long had a well-established if comparatively small fighting force, and tactics that used the country’s unique geographical and meteorological conditions to extreme advantage. From a top-down view, the Finnish strategy was and continues to be one of guerilla warfare, and of exploiting the logistical and tactical particularities of a conventional army from an authoritarian nation. For example, the Finns were trained to zip through the forest on cross-country skies or by foot, attacking from areas through which the large columns of a battalion couldn’t march. This allowed the Finns to pick off enemy soldiers, easily cut communications and supply lines, and consistently attack and retreat without warning. Further, the chain of command for the Russian army was similar to today’s, and continues to cause them the same issues: entire battalions often not knowing what to do or being unable to respond easily to a fluid situation because they need to wait on orders from officials higher up in the chain. (Note that this command structure is one that the US military avoids, allowing squad or platoon leaders to make decisions on the fly so they can better flow with a given situation)

      In Ukraine, there are no such advantages for the defenders. The Ukrainian army is lacking in both competence and leadership, and it has little to no capability when it comes to cutting off supply lines and communications. Russia’s supply line and logistical issues have been a result of their military’s hubris and continued insistence on a rigid command structure, overextending their forces in the first few weeks and failing to take into account the “muddy season.” However, the Russian command seems to be very slowly learning from their mistakes. They’re now consolidating their forces in a smaller area and better avoiding battles in geographically challenging spaces, and the muddy season will soon be over. Ironically, the issues for the larger Ukrainian army are best demonstrated by the success of their Azov Battalion, which is only loosely affiliated with the national army and has successfully used their local terrain and connections to be the most effective group defending Ukraine.

  15. Sadly, if either A or B is true then the Republican’s will rout us in November. If we want to win in the fall we must un-splinter the party which is currently acting like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Mickey Mouse and the ever exploding brooms. The far left is never satisfied, the center can not hold. And, as I recall, anyone over 30 is suspect. So the Republicans will laugh, get in line, salute and win.

  16. The two-party system itself seems to me in large part responsible for the national disruption. Consider: there are people who believe that abortion must be banned because their gods demand such a ban, and there are people who believe that abortion should be freely available to anyone who wants one. Such persons, on whichever side, often see the issue of abortion as the most important phenomenon in political life, and because there are only two big fat political parties in control in USA, these groups are forced to gravitate to one such party or the other.
    Similarly, there are people who believe that “gun violence” is responsible for high murder rates, and there are people who believe it to be their “sacred constitutional right” to unfettered firearms ownership, and both of these groups people see the matter of firearms as the critical element in political life. Again, the two-party winner-take-all system causes them to gravitate apart, and the two political parties take up their causes uncompromisingly.
    I suspect that such single-issue ideologues are in the minority, and that the vast majority of voters pretty much want the same things, a social contract via which we are assured that out taxes go to good health, reasoned education at honorable price for all, decent roads, etc. This practical but non-ideological majority is not offered a political party, and is forced instead into one or the other of the two smoke-belching clown cars that we dub Republicrats and Demopublicans.

  17. Oh, Hell, I am retired now, and my mother (a firm believer) passed away in 2020* (and I’m even “officially” retired from my instrument-making business, though I continue to make them).

    My name James Blilie and I am a thorough-going atheist. A 6.99 on Dawkins’ scale (Dawkins calls himself a 6 — only whole numbers I guess). I am quite sure that there are no gods; and I live my life as if there are none. As a rational person, I am open to new data on the subject.

    Strange how this is perhaps the one thing one cannot state in public without some concern over job, family, etc. Very, very strange.

    1. * She passed at 84, independent right up to the day she died. I feel fortunate for being able to help her maintain her independence for the last decade of her life. She lived less than a mile from me. She died of a stroke, not COVID. I spoke to her the day before she died.

  18. I’d like to ask the person who insisted that the NYT isn’t “woke”: how do you feel about its — and almost the entirety of the national media’s — coverage of the NYC subway shooter? It’s tough not to notice that, as soon as it turned out that the shooter was black and had a ridiculously long and vicious history of anti-white and antisemitic racism (in addition to anti-Asian and -Hispanic) in his online history, and appears to have committed the attack out of racist ideology, the NYT and its fellow travelers basically dropped the story almost entirely. Now, tell us true: what do you think the coverage would be like if you changed the race of the shooter to a white person, and the racism to that against people of color? Honesty time: we’d be having a months-long “national conversation” about the dangers of white racist extremists and the systemic white supremacy of the USA.

    It took 21 articles before the NYT admitted that the person had posted racist content and, even then, it was nested in the end of an article and very sneakily made it sound like it was white supremacist content by merely describing it as “lengthy rants in which he expressed a range of harshly bigoted views and, more recently, criticized the policies of New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.” Notice that, in that very same sentence, they mention his criticism of Eric Adam, who is black. Surely, none of this is coincidence…

Leave a Reply