God Bless Niall Ferguson! (Pretty much)
It’s hard to think of anyone I have trashed so consistently and so contemptuously as Niall Ferguson, whom I once grudgingly praised with a thoroughly uncivil leer as a Thelonious Monk-loving slimeball, while also urging readers not to read his then most recent book, whose title will go unmentioned here, because it’s dumb.
But, well, now I’m stumped, because Niall has written one hell of a winner, Dust Off That Dirty Word Detente and Engage With China, supporting his title and subhead, “Joe Biden's grand strategy is setting the US and Beijing on a collision course. It's bad foreign policy and terrible domestic politics”, with a superb command of the historical data—dating back to the origins of “détente” under Richard Nixon—and bringing it up to date in an utterly convincing manner. If only Uncle Joe and his Krazy Kollege o’ Kold War Kommandos would listen. Well, if wishes were horses, then beggars could ride.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown wants a bombshell, because January 6 wasn’t loud enough for her
Reasonette Elizabeth Nolan Brown, usually one of my favorites when I want to know what the hell is going on in the world, comes a cropper in her recent “Reason Roundup”, Will Tonight's Capitol Riot Hearing Deliver Bombshells or Be Another Dud?, complaining, in effect, that the House Committee probably won’t produce a signed confession from President Trump explaining how he conspired with the Proud Boys to place seven tons of dynamite in the basement of the Capitol, which is still there, with his fingerprints and DNA on every single stick, which sadly failed to detonate because the iPhone that he set as the trigger, also with his fingerprints and DNA on it, failed to ring when he dialed the number, recorded as having been dialed from his iPhone, because the trigger phone had lost its charge.
People like Brown are simply afraid to recognize the truth, that Trump is a monster, pure and simple. She’s afraid to reach such a scary conclusion on her own; she wants someone to make it for her, someone who isn’t “partisan”. She won’t acknowledge that a “nonpartisan” investigation/trial is impossible because 1) a large majority of Republicans believe 99% of the lies Trump has uttered on the subject of the 2020 election, and 99% of those Republicans who don’t believe him are too afraid of their “fellows” to dare say a word against El Donaldo. A “Libertarian” who is afraid to think for herself. There are such things.
UPDATE: Elizabeth changes her mind!
The January 6 Hearings May Be Surprisingly Worthwhile, says Libbie in surprise:
In lengthy opening remarks, Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney displayed a TV prosecutor's command of narrative, weaving together video footage and commentary from January 6, 2021, with post-hoc video testimony and tidbits from key Trump administration players and GOP lawmakers, plus statements from people who partook in storming the Capitol. The result was a cohesive and disturbing view of the lead-up to the day's events and their aftermath.
Well, some of us were pretty “disturbed”—as in “utterly and mother-fuckingly horrified” at the time—but congrats on Libbie for being willing to learn (and to admit it) and special props to Liz Cheney and the committee as a whole for such an effective presentation.
Did the jury give Johnny Depp too much money? Maybe! Or maybe not!
Freddie DeBoer, writing in, well “Freddie DeBoer” (his substack blog), says that Depp-Heard Seems Like a Civil Liberties Disaster to Me, and I’ll let him explain why:
I need to go on record in saying that this whole affair could have really ugly consequences for free expression. I think people - not victims, which is a term that begs the question and a class to which liberals have attached unhealthy baggage - I think people should have the right to publicly share their version of controversial events even in those cases where the factual accuracy of their version of those events is in doubt. I think the inevitable scrum of memory and self-interested perspectives makes it impossible for any of us to have perfect understanding of our own actions or what exactly happened in emotionally-charged situations. And I think the only way to resolve those factual disputes is for each party to simply share their best version of events, knowing that the other party will have the opportunity to do the same, and interested observers will have to sort out their version of the truth. Heavy handed defamation lawsuits with multimillion-dollar judgments risk creating a powerful chilling effect that could prevent anyone (again, not just victims) from freely and forcefully telling their version of the truth in a world where we will never all agree on basic facts. I have no fucking idea why the ACLU was involved, but Heard’s WaPo essay should not have been subject to a vast fine like the one the jury handed down, and I disagree with the decision. For the record I also don’t think Depp (through his lawyer) should have been sued for defamation either.
Well, yeah, but what if someone publicly shares her version of controversial events, and her version is a lie, a lie that costs you a gig worth, say, $20 million? Does Donald Trump have the “right” to share publicly his version of the 2020 election while suffering no legal consequences? Since I did not watch or read anything about what was said at the Depp-Heard trial/horror show, I have no opinion on the outcome, but I did make repeated fun of Ms. Heard, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Washington Post, not to mention poor old Elon Musk in conjunction with the matter, but I think my ridicule would have stood even if the jury decided Amber owed Johnny nothing and he owed her $15 million. I think the artful wording of Amber’s piece, which both I and WashPost media guy Erik Wemple harped on, at some length, made it clear that neither the Post, nor Ms. Heard, not the ACLU wanted to go on record as charging Johnny with abusing Amber, yet still wanted to present her as a “representative” of abused women.
Now being sneaky isn’t a crime, and it shouldn’t be, and it also seems “arguable” that the verdict was especially unfair because Johnny, being a major movie star, could command a huge salary and thus could plausibly claim that he suffered a huge loss. But what about “ordinary people”? Haven’t people been kicked out of college, lost their professorships, or other jobs because people have publicly shared their version of controversial events even in those cases where the factual accuracy of their version of those events was in doubt, and those accused had their lives ruined as a result, because, unlike Johnny Depp, they weren’t sitting on a vast mountain of cash?
The notion that the results of a court case can be “bad” even though the case may have been decided on the merits is in itself a bad one. The rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants should not be stepped on in the name of some greater good, to be defined by others, even smart ones like Mr. DeBoer. His post is definitely worth reading, and definitely worth disagreeing with.
Shorter Ross Douthat: I saved the country! And all I got for it was this lousy tee-shirt!
Ross Douthat is happy, and who can blame him? Last month’s primary in Georgia brought nothing but good news from “thoughtful” (that is to say, vaguely) anti-Trumpers like Ross. Let Ross tell it:
In Georgia, the state at the center of the 45th president’s attempt to defy the public will and stay in office, there were two Republican primary races that doubled as referendums on the Trumpian demand that G.O.P. officials follow him into a constitutional crisis — and in both of them his candidate lost badly.
Of Trump-defyin’ Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger’s successful campaign to retain his office, Ross says the following:
[I]t indicates the limits of the all-or-nothing thinking that a crisis mentality imposes. I can easily imagine an alternative timeline where Raffensperger resigned his office rather than standing for re-election, inked a deal with MSNBC, turned his subsequent book into a mega-bestseller in the style of so many Trump-administration exposés and adopted Biden-administration talking points to denounce Georgia election laws. That timeline would have unquestionably been better for the Raffensperger family’s bank account, and it would have prompted many liberals to hail him as a profile in Republican courage.
But for everyone else — Georgians, the G.O.P., the country — that timeline would have been worse. Whereas because he stayed in the party, ran again and won, even in a dark week for America, one region of our common life looks a little better, and one of our crises should feel a little bit less dire.
Yeah, that Raffensperger guy is quite the hero. Remind you of anyone?
O Ross, O Ross. You lyin’ sack o’ shit.
Yo, Jonathan Chait! Chuck Schumer was waaaay out of line!
Over at New York magazine, fairly reliable lib Jonathan Chait goes way out on an unfortunate limb, viz, Republicans Smearing Chuck Schumer With Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt, defending Senate Majority Leader Charles “Chuckie Boy” Schumer against Republican charges that his hysterical verbal attack on Republican Supreme Court justices back in 2020 could have anything to do with the recent one-man plan/mission to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.
Well, here is a sample of Chuck’s boorishness, speaking to demonstrators outside the Supreme Court back in the day:
I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
Okay, it wasn’t “Lock and load, motherfucker! Lock and load!”, but “you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price!” is language explicitly assuming that it is appropriate to try to “persuade” Supreme Court justices to decide cases the way you want them to with vague yet aggressive threats of personal retribution. It was grossly inappropriate language for anyone to use, much less a senator. Schumer should have been ashamed of himself for pandering to a crowd in such a manner, particularly one demonstrating outside the Supreme Court itself, as I complained at the time, with a post titled Shorter Chuck Schumer: Democrats can so be as bad as Trump!. Roe v. Wade, I have repeatedly argued, was an extremely poor decision, and the increasingly desperate attempts of Democrats to bluster their way past that fact have become increasingly unattractive. So, no, Chuck didn’t call for blood, but he was an advocate for what I would call “unreason”.
At the same time, it would be “nice” if Republicans on the Court would realize that their control of the Court is the result of a Senate and Electoral College that, thanks to population shifts, is increasingly unrepresentative of the American people. But the great danger is that they will go in precisely the opposite direction, not pretending to believe but actually believing that, by acting contrary to the values of the majority, they are upholding the “true” meaning of the Constitution, guarding against the “tyranny of the majority”, something else I’ve complained about a lot, perhaps most recently here.
For a good look at the “good”—the very good—Jonathan Chait, read his most recent post, Boudin and the Debacle of Urban Left-wing Politics , which is just excellent.
Is Ginni Thomas taking legal advice from her husband? I think so!
The Washington Post has the story: On November 9, 2020, Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent identical emails to 20 members of the Arizona House of Representatives and 7 members of the state’s Senate, urging them to, basically, overturn Joe Biden’s victory in that state and send Trumpian electors to Washington. As the Post tells it
The message, [sent] just days after media organizations called the race for Biden in Arizona and nationwide, urged lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and claimed that the responsibility to choose electors was “yours and yours alone.” They had “power to fight back against fraud” and “ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen,” the email said.
But that’s not all:
On Dec. 13, the day before members of the electoral college were slated to cast their votes and seal Biden’s victory, Thomas emailed 22 House members and one senator. “Before you choose your state’s Electors … consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead,” the email said. It linked to a video of a man urging swing-state lawmakers to “put things right” and “not give in to cowardice.”
Does it sound to you like Ginni is echoing arguments made in the infamous Bush v. Gore decision by then Chief Justice William Rehnquist and seconded by the Gold Dust Twins, Nino Scalia and Clarence Thomas (and no one else, and thus lack precedential value) that Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, stating that “each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct” the presidential electors for that state, means not that the selection of electors shall be done according to existing state law, administered the executive branch and subject to the oversight of the judicial branch, but rather the legislative branch is supreme over the entire process and, as Ginni urged, may declare, at will, that an election has been “corrupted”, void the result, and select the “proper” electors entirely at its own initiative and subject to no restraint from any other branch whatsoever?1 Well, it kinda sounds like it!
1. University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone explains why Rehnquist’s argument, and his attempt to use it a power grab, was nothing but a crock. Unfortunately, the Court had other crocks, equally reeking yet somehow more palatable to Republican “moderates” (aka “cowards”) Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, to use in the perpetration of the most shameless Supreme Court decision in American history. (Professor Stone nobly empties these pots as well.)
