Monday, June 3, 2019
The Weaponization of Feeling ‘Unsafe’
“I don’t feel safe,” says a Harvard student in a video.
What threatens her? The dean of her Harvard dormitory, law professor Ronald Sullivan, agreed to be part of accused sexual harasser Harvey Weinstein’s legal defense team.
Sullivan and his wife were deans of the dormitory for years, but no matter. Now the professor is apparently an evil threat.
A group calling itself “Our Harvard Can Do Better” demanded Sullivan be removed from his dean job.
Sullivan is black, but black activists joined the protest, too. On the videotape, one says, “Dean Sullivan told me to my face that I should view his representation of Harvey Weinstein as a good thing because that representation will trickle down to black men like me who constantly face an unjust justice system.”
Seems reasonable to me. But the privileged Harvard students laugh and clap when the protester goes on to say, “F— that!”
Colleges don’t show much courage when pushed by student activists. Harvard administrators removed Sullivan and his wife from the residence hall.
Do the students really “feel unsafe”?
“They’re lying,” says Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in my newest video. “Anybody who says they feel unsafe in the presence of a lawyer and his wife are looking you in the eye and committing the equivalent of perjury. They don’t feel unsafe. They’ve learned the language of the new McCarthyism.”
In other words, people call themselves “victims,” knowing they can get results they want by saying they are traumatized by the presence of their enemies. Schools and other businesses, wanting to avoid protracted fights and accusations of sexism, racism or “insensitivity,” rush to comply with activists’ wishes.
Dershowitz is mad about what’s happened at his school: “The mantra of the day is ‘We feel unsafe.’ Well, that’s just too bad! Learn to deal with it. You’re going to have to live in the real world in which your neighbors, friends, relatives are going to disagree with you. If you start using the criteria of ‘unsafe’ in your life, you’re going to be a failure.”
Worse, he adds, “You’re going to impose restrictions on the rest of us.”
I told Dershowitz that the students protesting Sullivan were mostly young women. Some had been sexually assaulted. Isn’t it reasonable that they not be reminded of that?
“No, it’s not reasonable not to want to face the reality that due process requires that everybody be represented,” replied Dershowitz.
Harvard didn’t fire Sullivan from his professor job, only his dean job.
So I said to Dershowitz: “Don’t students have a right to say, ‘Look, we’re living with this guy. He creeps us out because of what he does. Get somebody else’?”
“If they could say that,” replied Dershowitz, “they could say it about somebody who supports Donald Trump for president, somebody who is a Muslim, who’s gay, who’s Jewish, you name it.”
Sullivan, who like Dershowitz has defended clients considered monsters by the general public, has long argued, “For the rights of all of us… to be protected, we have to live in a system where we vigorously, vigorously defend the guilty.”
“You get the right to counsel no matter how despicable you are thought to be,” explains Dershowitz. “These students would have fired John Adams. They would have not allowed him to come to the Constitutional Convention or write the Declaration of Independence because he defended the people who were accused of the Boston Massacre.”
The new McCarthyism requires that everyone bow to demands of “victims.” That’s a lot of people.
On the videotape, one student says she worries not just about her own safety, but the well-being of “survivors, transgender and gender nonconforming people, BGLTQ people, undocumented, DACAmented and TPS people, indigenous people, first generation low-income people…”
I don’t even know what some of those words mean.
Most of us want to protect genuine victims. But it makes little sense that...
A Disturbing Glimpse Into the Manufacturing of Fake News
President Trump’s enemies provided yet another disturbing glimpse of the bona fide fake news factory into which the mainstream media has morphed.
Late last week, Ian Bremmer tweeted a made-up quote from President Trump. Bremmer is one of the most well-known foreign policy experts in America. He didn’t offer any hint that the statement was fake. “President Trump in Tokyo: ‘Kim Jong Un is smarter and would make a better President than Sleepy Joe Biden,'” Bremmer wrote. He provided no further context.
As expected, the fake news twitterverse took the quote at face-value. Journalists and lawmakers alike went on to share Bremmer’s tweet. They blasted President Trump for a comment he never made.
Liberals Run With the Fake Quote
CNN contributor Ana Navarro-Cárdenas retweeted the fake quote with an emotional message to her followers.
“Don’t shrug your shoulders. Don’t get used to this insanity,” she wrote. “The President of the United States praising a cruel dictator who violates human rights, threatens nuclear attacks, oppresses his people, and kills political opponents, IS NOT FREAKING NORMAL.”
Democrat Representative Ted Lieu also took the bait. He tweeted a list of critical questions at the president in response to Bremmer’s made-up quote. “Is this when @realDonaldTrump became our President? Or was it when he kowtowed to Putin in Helsinki? Or was it when he said there are find people on both sides? Or was it when he obstructed justice multiple times? Or was it when he separated infants from parents? Or was it w …” the lawmaker said.
CNN contributor Ana Navarro-Cárdenas retweeted the fake quote with an emotional message to her followers.
“Don’t shrug your shoulders. Don’t get used to this insanity,” she wrote. “The President of the United States praising a cruel dictator who violates human rights, threatens nuclear attacks, oppresses his people, and kills political opponents, IS NOT FREAKING NORMAL.”
Democrat Representative Ted Lieu also took the bait. He tweeted a list of critical questions at the president in response to Bremmer’s made-up quote. “Is this when @realDonaldTrump became our President? Or was it when he kowtowed to Putin in Helsinki? Or was it when he said there are find people on both sides? Or was it when he obstructed justice multiple times? Or was it when he separated infants from parents? Or was it w …” the lawmaker said.
The Objectively Ludicrous Remark
The outrage spread across social media. Finally, Bremmer posted an “update.” He admitted that he had invented the “objectively ludicrous” remark as an experiment. The following day, Bremmer finally issued a belated apology for his original tweet. He admitted that he “should have been clearer” when (mis-)quoting the president.
You may not believe Bremmer’s claim. But it’s clear that his initial tweet lacked proper context. He is a respected foreign policy expert, columnist and editor-at-large for Time magazine. Bremmer is — or was — viewed as a credible source by many of his followers. He should have taken that responsibility more seriously. However, Bremmer is not an objective “reporter” who is paid to publish facts. Media persons who quickly spread his...
The outrage spread across social media. Finally, Bremmer posted an “update.” He admitted that he had invented the “objectively ludicrous” remark as an experiment. The following day, Bremmer finally issued a belated apology for his original tweet. He admitted that he “should have been clearer” when (mis-)quoting the president.
You may not believe Bremmer’s claim. But it’s clear that his initial tweet lacked proper context. He is a respected foreign policy expert, columnist and editor-at-large for Time magazine. Bremmer is — or was — viewed as a credible source by many of his followers. He should have taken that responsibility more seriously. However, Bremmer is not an objective “reporter” who is paid to publish facts. Media persons who quickly spread his...
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #641
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Report: Justice Department Prepares to Launch Antitrust Investigation into Google
The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to begin an antitrust investigation into Google that could see the tech giant come under a new wave of scrutiny from regulators. According to people familiar with the matter, the antitrust division of the Justice Department has been gathering information and preparing for the investigation for weeks.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shares antitrust authority with the Justice Department, has previously conducted antitrust investigations into Google on a broader scale but closed the investigation in 2013 with no action taken. Google did, however, make some voluntary changes to some of its business practices as a result of the investigation.
The FTC and Justice Department have been discussing which group will oversee further antitrust investigations of Google, with the FTC agreeing to give the Justice Department full jurisdiction over Google. Now that an understanding has been reached between the two government bodies, the Justice Department is preparing to conduct an in-depth investigation into Google. It has yet to be revealed if the Justice Department has contacted Google in relation to the investigation.
Those familiar with the matter stated that the Justice Department has been in contact with third-party groups that have been critical of Google in the past. The Wall Street Journal reached out to the Justice Department and Google for comment on the matter but did not receive a reply. The FTC declined to comment on the issue.
Breitbart News reported in March of this year that Silicon Valley giant Google has been fined $1.7 billion by the European Union for the company’s third breach of E.U. antitrust laws in three years. The latest fine against the company relates to Google’s AdSense advertising service and “illegal practices in search advertising brokering to cement its dominant market position,” according to European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
Vestager and her team concluded that third-party websites that sued Google to power their search and advertising features had “restrictive clauses in contracts” preventing them from hosting ads from rival...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)