In Which I Agree with Michelle Obama and Angel Reese

Posted on by
Reply

But maybe not for their reasons. In an interview on Obama’s podcast, WNBA star Angel Reese said,

The media has not always been great for me. And I’ll take a fine. I’ll catch a fine, especially in a WNBA. I’ll have a fine before I have to go to media and feel like my back is against the wall[.]

Obama repeatedly agreed with Reese over these and similar comments during the interview.

I tend to be hard over on the 1st Amendment and our freedoms of speech and association. It’s wrong that the WNBA and the other professional sports leagues require players and managers/coaches to present themselves to press inquisitions before, during, and after games. Athletes and their coaches and managers shouldn’t lose those basic rights just because of who they are.

Those rights to speak or not and to associate with pressmen formally or informally or not at all are independent of whether the press treats those it summons to their audiences badly or fawningly. Meeting the press should be an entirely voluntary affair. Nobody makes pressmen show up for these; neither should anyone else be required.

That’s the Point of the Escort

Posted on by
Reply

The DC Circuit court has upheld Pentagon press reporter escort restrictions inside the Pentagon while the underlying case works its way through the judicial system.

Judge J Michelle Childs dissented, and in her dissent, she demonstrated her lack of understanding of the problem:

Reporters can hardly verify sources, gather information, or speak candidly with Department personnel with an escort looming over their shoulders.

Nor should those Department personnel be able to speak “candidly.” They’re possessed of too much classified information, and that information is classified for very good reasons. Passing that information to reporters, whether deliberately or accidentally, would do damage to our national security, potentially very severe damage.

Aside from that, we—and she—have no reason to believe the reporters are verifying any sources, since those reporters refuse to identify any of them.

These personnel have no business talking to reporters inside the Pentagon, anyway; they should be referring the reporter to the relevant Public Affairs Officer, who is well-trained in answering reporters’ questions as candidly as classification limits allow, as well as obfuscating and weasel-wording in response to a reporter’s obvious gotcha and trolling questions.

No Question Here

Posted on by
Reply

Federal District Judge Loren AliKhan is the presiding judge in Soffer v George Washington University, a case centered on allegations that antisemitic activity is rampant on the GWU campus. While serving in that capacity, the GWU Law School hired the judge as an adjunct professor.

The overlap has prompted questions about a potential conflict of interest, given federal rules requiring judges to avoid cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. AliKhan did not immediately step aside but issued a 10-day stay in late March to consider whether recusal is warranted. Since the April 20 status conference, no final decision has been publicly announced.

??

How is this even a question? Those Federal rules don’t just bar judges’ conflicts of interest, nor is this merely a matter of questions of impartiality. Those rules bar judges from actions that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest, a requirement that, if honored by judges, preempts any questions of impartiality.

It’s more than that, though. While AliKhan was presiding, she should never have even considered the GWU offer of employment, or she should have resigned from the bench altogether: teaching in a law school hews too close to the ethical line and creates that barred appearance of conflict.

That she hasn’t even deigned recuse herself yet (as I write on Sunday) is instructive of her level of ethics. Given that lack, GWU’s Law School should reconsider its hiring of her, and if the Law School can’t figure it out, GWU should act in its subordinate Law School’s stead. Either of those entiities’ decision to do nothing would be instructive, also.

“No New Negotiations”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the position of Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian, at least until the US lifts its blockade of Iran’s ports and of shipping going to and from Iran.

I’m down with that. The blockade has finally achieved something that years of sanctions have failed to obtain: a serious stranglehold on the money flowing into Iran, which it uses in its nuclear weapons development programs [sic] and to fund its terrorist satraps.

Even this serious grip, though, will take time to produce results, particularly among a collection of despots who believe that they have lost nothing since they have not lost their lives. The US should push the pace. Let the bomb deliveries resume and dismantle the despots’ war-making infrastructure. Destroy Iran’s ports, cut the pipelines to Kharg Island and to Bandar Abbas. Cut the pipelines running from Iran’s oil wells and running to and from Iran’s refineries. Resume the attacks against the now dispersed IRGC leadership. Hunt and destroy Iran’s stored inventory of missiles, drones, and launchers. Destroy Iran’s missile, drone, and launcher production facilities. Hunt and destroy Iran’s (IRGC’s) mosquito boat fleet which it currently uses to attack commercial shipping in the Arabian Gulf.

Keep this up until the despots come to the table with decision-makers and agree the US’ terms. President Donald Trump (R) has acknowledged that the Iran government, having taken casualties already, is fractured and in a power struggle, but this is irrelevant. With the increased pressure and casualties among those in charge or competing to be in charge, the surviving government men will figure out how to stop being fractured and take seriously their fate.

As President Donald Trump (R) said when he called off his envoys’ trip to Pakistan last week, the Iranian despots know how to call him and can do so when they’re ready to be serious. They also can be given safe passage to any meeting point while kinetic operations continue.

Dangerously Naïve Assumption

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew Continetti, in his Free Expression piece, had this early on:

Yet Democrats are looking at the wrong maps. They’re winning the gerrymander battle while losing the larger war for America’s future. Their state machines produce Democratic victories, but from a shrinking base. Their populations are fleeing high taxes and housing shortages for Republican strongholds. Nor are Democrats prepared for 2030, when the decennial census will realign national politics toward the GOP-friendly South.

As Continetti noted,

House Minority Leader Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY) threatened retaliation and summed up his party’s philosophy: “Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”

But he missed the implications of that, and that miss falsifies his underlying assumption that the Census Bureau count and subsequent House Representatives reallocation will occur in the normal fashion. That’s a dangerous miss, but he’s not alone in making that naïve assumption. No one in the press is thinking about the effect on the Census Bureau of Progressive-Democratic Party victories in the next two elections.

When the Progressive-Democrats gain control of the House and possibly the Senate after the 2026 elections, retain House control and retain or gain the majority in the Senate while winning the White House in the 2028 elections, this is what Party will do. First, it will use its Senate majority, possibly as early as January 2027, to gain outright control of the Senate by eliminating the filibuster altogether. That’ll be bad enough, devolving us from the liberty-preserving republican democracy of our present government structure to the tyranny of popular democracy.

Next, they’ll rescind any requirement for voters to show ID in order to vote, and they’ll lift restrictions on who is allowed to cross our border and under what conditions. To prevent States like Texas from doing their own border enforcement, they’ll pack the Supreme Court in order to get the judicial rulings they want regarding immigration and voting rights.

Finally, they’ll use all of that to cement for generations Party control over the popular democracy they will have created: they’ll alter the rules of counting the Census Bureau is required to use to prevent just that Representative reallocation in order create and preserve their Electoral College advantage.

There’s one more step that will put a big, blue bow on it. Many of the Progressive-Democratic Party-run States are making agreements among themselves to have each State award its Electoral College votes to the Presidential candidate that wins the national-level popular vote. Interstate agreements or compacts are illegal without explicit Congressional approval of each agreement or compact attempted, per our Constitution’s Art I, Sect 10, Clause 3. The Party-run Congress will promptly approve those agreements.

Our nation faces nation-defining elections in 2026 and 2028. The futures of our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren depend on the outcomes of those elections.