How Reason Helps You Stay Sane During Political Brainworms Season


Nope, nope, and nope! | Lex Villena

Money is easily countable and comprehensible, sure, but some of the better byproducts of Reason‘s annual Webathon—in which we ask regular consumers of our editorial content to make an end-o’-year, tax-deductible donation to keep us rockin’ through 2024 and beyond—are the comments submitted alongside the gifts. Like this one:

You guys are the best. Thank you for the work you do for liberty and for being a model of intellectual consistency in a sea of tribalist mental gymnastics.

Emphasis added, because American politics right now is moving into a land of both shadow and substance otherwise known as … (involuntary shuddering) … the 2024 presidential campaign. (Long scream.) Reason is an essential part of your toolkit in surviving the next 12 months with your wits intact.

OH NO LET’S NOT GO CRAZY! DONATE TO REASON TODAY!

Aspiring to a model of intellectual consistency requires subjecting politicians and parties to critiques rooted in both fact and philosophy. Part of avoiding tribalist mental gymnastics is declining to join a tribe. Libertarianism is inherently skeptical of the accumulation and exercise of state power, and so Reason submits every politician and government official, including the libertarian-adjacent, to healthy levels of skepticism, including criticism when appropriate.

Previous presidential cycles have generated some valuable such exercises with major-party candidates: 2020’s “The Case Against Biden,” “The Case Against Trump,” and “Kamala Harris Is a Cop Who Wants To Be President“; 2016’s “Bernie’s Bad Ideas,” “Trump vs. the Constitution,” and “Hail to the Censor!“; 2012’s “Consultant in Chief,” and “The Ron Paul Moment,” 2008’s “Be Afraid of President McCain,” and “The Cult of the Presidency,” and on and on. Want more articles like that?

DONATE TO REASON TODAY.

The approach of keeping our heads while others lose theirs has served us well in the 12 months since our last Webathon. Some examples:

This coming presidential season, with its two ancient and profoundly unpopular major-party front-runners, plus all kinds of wild cards in the third party/independent lane, is guaranteed to go cuckoo-bananas long before the Democratic Party holds its national convention in, uh, Chicago. You need a journalistic outlet to help keep you sane, to scrutinize through a libertarian lens, and maybe even to laugh a little at the horror show. You need Reason! And we need you.

WON’T YOU PLEASE DONATE TO REASON AT THIS VERY MOMENT?

The post How <i>Reason</i> Helps You Stay Sane During Political Brainworms Season appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/i6PxUtg
via IFTTT

Number Of Kids Put On Puberty Blockers Doubles Despite NHS Promising To Stop

Number Of Kids Put On Puberty Blockers Doubles Despite NHS Promising To Stop

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

The number of children placed on puberty blockers for ‘gender affirming care’ has doubled in the UK in a year despite the government run National Health Service saying it would stop the practice outside of clinical trials.

The Telegraph reports that at least 100 children, some as young as 12, have been given the drugs since July 2022 regardless of the NHS’ decision that month to stop doing so based on a damning review by Dr Hilary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Dr Cass warned that puberty blockers could permanently disrupt the brain development of adolescents, and irreversibly rewire neural circuits.

Cass also charged that Tavistock clinic, where the ‘treatment’ is carried out, operates an “affirmative, non-exploratory approach”, diagnosing children with gender dysphoria without proper oversight. 

NHS England agreed with Cass’ findings and announced that “due to the significant uncertainties surrounding the use of hormone treatments” puberty blockers for children would be halted.

The report notes that Freedom of Information requests for referrals from the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service have revealed that hasn’t happened.

The figures also do not include those given the drugs by GPs or privately, and are likely to be much higher.

Commenting on the findings, Psychotherapist Stella O’Malley charged that “This demonstrates that the culture war is more important than the medical war.”

Consultant psychiatrist Dr David Bell commented that the drugs cause “considerable damage,” adding “There are serious concerns about bone mineralisation and long-term cognitive effects.”

“We know 98 per cent of children starting puberty blockers go on to take opposite-sex hormones, and a very significant proportion of those go on to have surgery,” he continued, adding “They are being started on a pathway which is highly likely to be irreversible. Once you start them on that path, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Bell also noted that “autism, depression, family trauma or sexuality” are not considered as factors which goes “completely against the Cass recommendations”.

Stephanie Davies-Arai, director of Transgender Trend, which campaigns for evidence-based healthcare, said “How many more children will be given blockers before they stop?” adding “I don’t understand how the NHS can sit back and let this continue when they know the harms that were described in Dr Cass’ interim report.”

As we highlighted earlier this week, NHS midwives have revealed that they are being forced to assign gender identities to new born babies on a new computer system, rather than register their biological sex.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our great merch.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gtFXNMK Tyler Durden

Monkey Herpes, Face Eating, and the Pork Chop Gang: How Public Records Laws Created the Florida Man


A composite of various Florida Man headlines in the media | Illustration: Joanna Andreasson

It usually isn’t great news for a politician when a newspaper reports that you threatened the Special Olympics, but it was just another day for Florida state Rep. Randy Fine, a bombastic Republican millionaire.

Last April, Florida Today obtained text messages showing Fine had warned a West Melbourne City Council member that state funding for a Special Olympics event in the town was now at risk because the city had invited one of Fine’s political opponents—a Brevard County school board member named Jennifer Jenkins, whom Fine had previously called a “whore“—to a fundraiser. “Jenkins just put your project and special Olympics funding on the veto list,” Fine texted.

In another state, those texts might have stayed secret, but in Florida they were public property—and were revealed by a public records request. The City Council member told Florida Today that Fine objected to their release and wanted a city attorney handling the records request to be fired. Fine denied that the message was a threat or that he wanted anyone fired, although it’s hard to read his message any other way.

Florida has a particularly strong public records law that guarantees access to records from all three branches of state government, including the Legislature, giving news readers frequent glimpses into the machinations of its less gifted public servants.

Florida’s Sunshine Law was born out of a long fight to rein in the buffoonish corruption that has plagued the state since its birth, and the law became an improbable model for other states. Florida’s robust transparency laws may have also contributed to its status as a world-class generator of weird and scandalous headlines, cementing the bizarre comic persona of Florida Man in the process.

Over the years, reporters have used records requests to reveal the unjust seizure of millions of dollars from minority motorists, preferential treatment of college football players by police, fraud in Florida’s state lottery, and several instances of police chiefs and federal prosecutors caught on body cameras trying to use their authority to wiggle out of traffic stops.

But numerous carve-outs by the state Legislature and aggressive work by Gov. Ron DeSantis to create new exemptions to the Sunshine Law have weakened it. Like the critically endangered Florida panther, the Sunshine Law is being steadily squeezed out of existence by the same politicians who celebrate it.

David Cuillier, director of the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida, explains the rollback with a Florida metaphor: hurricane season. “We have a Cat 3 secrecy-cane forming in humid waters, and it’s about to make landfall as a Cat 5,” Cuillier says. “I don’t mean to use hyperbole here, but this increasing secrecy in Florida and around the country—which is well-documented with data, we’re just not making it up—threatens the ability for people to control the tools that they created: their government.”

Florida Man and Other Exotic Species

You know Florida Man. You’ve probably read about him carrying an alligator into a liquor store, or calling 911 to get a ride to Hooters, or hiding boxes of top-secret documents in his bathroom.

The Florida Man meme has defined the modern conception of the state as a zoo full of sun-baked party monsters, drunken daredevils, deadly animals, and astoundingly dumb criminals.

Florida has always been a silly place. In 1868, the state’s second lieutenant governor, a corrupt carpetbagger named William Henry Gleason, declared himself governor and set up a rival chief executive office in a hotel. Barred from the Capitol by the governor’s armed supporters, Gleason issued official-looking documents from his government-in-exile suite until he was removed from office (and presumably the hotel) for failing to meet residency requirements.

But the birth of the modern Florida Man meme can be traced to three events. The first was the creation of a Florida tag on the snarky news aggregator Fark.com in the mid-2000s. The second was the time a naked Florida man allegedly high on bath salts ate someone’s face in 2012. (In a gruesome event that made international headlines, Rudy Eugene pinned another man, Ronald Poppo, to the ground and began chewing his face off, stopping only when a Miami police officer shot him several times.) The third event was the creation of the @_FloridaMan Twitter account several months after the face-eating incident.

Because of all this, the internet began meticulously tracking the misadventures of “the world’s worst superhero,” as the Twitter account dubbed its subject. The seemingly endless supply of stories and the enduring popularity of the meme has led many to wonder: Why is Florida so damn weird?

Some have suggested the Sunshine Law is a reason for the glut of insane news. Police reports and mug shots are readily available under the law, giving news outlets quick access to information about arrests. In the days after the cannibal attack, for example, news outlets were able to piece together the criminal histories of both Eugene and Poppo, and they later obtained police interview transcripts with Poppo and other witnesses. The explanation has appeared at CNN, the Miami New Times, and the Florida Man Wikipedia page, among others.

Craig Pittman, a longtime Florida reporter and the author of Oh, Florida! How America’s Weirdest State Influences the Rest of the Country, calls the state “the gift that keeps on giving” to newsreaders and journalists.

Indeed, a 2011 job ad for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune bragged that Florida is “arguably the best news state in the country and not just because of the great public records laws.”

It’s hard to argue with the claim that Florida is the lizard-brain nerve center of American weirdness. On the morning I interviewed Pittman, several Florida newspapers reported that leprosy appears now to be endemic in the state.

“I don’t think you can predict from one day to the next what the next big story is going to be,” Pittman says. “Who knew that leprosy would become a big story in Florida? It’s like, oh hey, a disease mentioned in the Bible.”

But Pittman is also a stickler for accuracy when it comes to these things. When I mention a viral story about an island near Tampa inhabited by a troop of herpes-infected monkeys, Pittman is quick to counter that, while it’s a great headline, it’s overblown. Sure, there is an island full of invasive rhesus macaques near Tampa, and granted, yes, about 25 percent of them have herpes B, which can be fatal in human beings, but they’re not infectious. Pittman points out the only times monkeys have transmitted herpes to humans have been in a laboratory setting.

Likewise, the theory that Florida’s Sunshine Law is a proximate cause of the Florida Man phenomenon has always struck Pitt-man as a bit too pat. It certainly doesn’t hurt to have open police records, he says, but you have to look at the other factors. Florida is the third most populous state, with a constant influx of new arrivals. The balmy climate is conducive to a volatile combination of outdoor shenanigans and day drinking. (Florida ranks first in the country in lightning fatalities and boating-related deaths.)

“A lot of the things that make Florida weird are not contained in the police logs,” Pittman says. “We’re the only state with mermaids on the state government payroll. The state employs python hunters. We’re the only state where we actually made a hippo an official citizen of the state so he could stay. That’s just not something you see anywhere else.”

There is also the dark side of the meme. The personified Florida Man is sort of a devil-may-care rogue—for instance, the Florida Man repeatedly apprehended by the Coast Guard for trying to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a giant inflatable hamster wheel—but there are real people behind the headlines, many of them in the middle of mental health crises or suffering from drug problems. For instance, the victim of the infamous face-eating cannibal case was a homeless man who is now permanently disfigured and blind. (There was also no actual evidence that the assailant was on bath salts.)

What if I told you the inflatable hamster wheel guy, Reza Baluchi, threatened to kill himself with a knife if the Coast Guard stopped him? Would you feel differently? What if you then learned he was an Iranian refugee who says he was imprisoned, tortured, and whipped by revolutionary police when he was a teenager? Or that he’s an ultramarathon runner who has run across the country several times, using his athletic talent and good-natured charm to promote peace and freedom? What if he just wants to run across the Atlantic Ocean in an inflatable bubble to affirm the unbreakable human spirit?

“My message is…no matter how many times you fail, you can do it,” Baluchi told the Miami New Times in 2016, after the Coast Guard scuttled his trip for the third time. “My goal is [to] make this so people say, ‘My God, they stop him three times, they destroy his bubble, but he made it. I can make it too.'”

These sorts of complexities have led to a critical reevaluation of the genre over the years. “Is It Okay to Laugh at Florida Man?” The Washington Post wondered in a 2019 feature. Freddie Campion, creator of the Florida Man Twitter account, retired it that same year.

“I never thought I was making fun of Florida,” Campion told the Post, “because Florida is America. It’s made up of people who moved here five years ago. Even when I think of Florida Man as a character, he moved to Florida after he faked his death in another state.”

Red Cross to the Rescue

The creation of Florida’s Sunshine Law is also a story about Florida men. In the 1950s and ’60s, thanks to malapportioned legislative districts, a bloc of rural Democratic state lawmakers known as the Pork Chop Gang controlled both chambers of the Legislature. Their priorities were upholding segregation, enriching themselves, and railing against subversives.

Emory “Red” Cross, a Gainesville Democrat who served first in the state House of Representatives and then in the state Senate, was disgusted with the shameless corruption. “The people were getting ripped off by secret meetings, not knowing what public officials were doing behind closed doors,” Cross told The Gainesville Sun in 2004.

Specifically, Cross was incensed that legislators were using privileged knowledge about the planned route of Interstate 75, better known as Alligator Alley, to buy up property and then make a handsome profit selling it back to the state.

“I had a very good friend who was on the road board helping his buddies,” Cross said. “It just wasn’t right.”

Florida had passed its first open government law in 1909. It was supposed to guarantee public access to government meetings and records, but the courts construed it narrowly and politicians mostly ignored it.

In 1957, Cross attended a fateful meeting of the Gainesville chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, a journalism fraternity that would later become the Society of Professional Journalists. Cross found sympathetic ears when he groused about the secret meetings, and he and several prominent Florida reporters began collecting examples of other open meetings laws from around the country. With Florida newspapers cheering him on, Cross then introduced what became known as his Government in the Sunshine bill every session for roughly a decade.

It was a lonely fight. Not a single legislator would co-sponsor his bill, and the Pork Chop Gang killed it every time it was introduced.

This would have likely continued ad infinitum, but in 1967 Florida was forced to redraw its legislative districts after the Supreme Court threw out its map, ending the Pork Chop Gang’s stranglehold on state politics. That year, the sunshine bill sailed through the Legislature and was signed by the governor. It created strict rules requiring all government meetings to be open to the public.

The same reapportionment ultimately cost Cross his seat. After his district was redrawn, he was defeated by a well-funded oil and gas distributor. Even when things change in Florida, they don’t change much.

But Cross’ legacy, the Sunshine Law, would be harder to dismantle. Over the ensuing decades, Florida courts interpreted it very broadly, cracking down on any unofficial meetings, no matter how benign, and expanding the scope of what was covered under the public records law.

In 1992, the state went even further, becoming the first in the country to adopt a constitutional amendment enshrining the right of access to government meetings and documents. It also expanded the Sunshine Law to cover judicial and legislative records, a relative rarity.

“Most of the states, it just applies to the executive branch, and that’s the case for the federal government, too,” Cuillier says.

The Current State of the Sunshine Law

So Florida’s journalists, citizen-sleuths, and other watchdogs have an advantage over those in many other states, at least on paper.

When Reason wanted to investigate how Florida school districts handled misconduct by police officers in schools, we shot records requests off to police departments and school districts across the state for internal disciplinary records and citizen complaints against school resource officers. The records we received included the case of a Miami-Dade Schools Police Department officer who was removed from his position after he sent sexually explicit texts to a teenage girl at the school he policed. An internal affairs summary obtained by Reason notes that, during the department’s investigation, the officer “refused to answer why he had sex toys in his department assigned vehicle.”

Until quite recently, these sorts of records were totally exempt from disclosure in New York and California, and even now it would take months or years, and possibly a lawsuit, to get departments in those states to hand them over.

Florida’s public records law is not without its flaws. Barbara Petersen, executive director of the Florida Center for Government Accountability, has defended Florida’s Sunshine Law through six governors’ administrations, going back to the 1990s. She says its two major problems are a lack of strong controls on fees and a lack of an appeals process.

Florida agencies are obligated to hand over a wide range of records, but there are not strong limits on how much they can charge requesters, allowing them to demand thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars for records that belong to the public. So while most agencies charged Reason between $100 and $200 for those police disciplinary records, The School District of Palm Beach County sent us an invoice for over $20,000.

This appears to be a recurring problem with the district. “I was working with a broadcast journalist down in Palm Beach County, and she made a request,” Petersen says. “She wanted the background checks of all volunteers in the classroom—somebody had sexually molested a child—and she was told it would cost her $60,000.”

Pittman remembers a case where the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office charged the St. Petersburg Times (now the Tampa Bay Times) $10,000 for disciplinary records. Back then, the paper could call the sheriff’s bluff and pay for it. But few newsrooms these days can afford to shell out that kind of money for public records.

There is nowhere to appeal an outrageous invoice. If, say, the Florida Department of Elder Affairs decides that it wants to redact information from reports of guardianship abuse, one’s only real recourse is to file a lawsuit.

In other states, ombudsmen and other positions provide layers of accountability. When Reason investigated abusive vehicle impound laws in Chicago, the city tried to charge $3,000 to run a simple query of its impound database, claiming that this would require “writing software.” After Reason appealed to the Illinois attorney general’s office, the city decided it could perform this laborious task for free.

In Texas, which has a unique system, any agency trying to withhold records for nonroutine reasons must appeal to the state attorney general’s office. This not only provides an automatic appeal process but creates a central repository of information on which agencies are rejecting records requests, from whom, and for what reason.

The federal Freedom of Information Act includes a statutory right to administrative appeal, and the Office of Government Information Services also offers mediation services.

There is no similar mechanism in Florida, or at least not one with teeth. The Florida attorney general’s office offers a mediation program to resolve public records disputes, but the program is voluntary, both sides must agree to it, and its decisions are not binding.

Meanwhile, the state has steadily chipped away at the Sunshine Law, adding new carve-outs and exemptions nearly every legislative session.

In 2018, Florida voters also adopted Amendment 6, more widely known as Marsy’s Law, a reasonable-sounding constitutional amendment to protect the privacy rights of crime victims. The law was named after Marsy Nicholas, a California woman who was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Nicholas’ family has worked since then to pass laws expanding victims’ rights, first in California and then in several other states. Despite warnings from transparency advocates and civil rights groups that the law contained a Trojan horse for police to hide information about fatal shootings, Florida became one of six states that year to approve a Marsy’s Law amendment.

It wasn’t long before a Florida police department invoked Marsy’s Law to withhold the name of an officer involved in a fatal shooting.

The result of all this is that Florida’s Sunshine Law is much weaker in practice than in theory. Cuillier has quantitatively studied the outcomes of Sunshine Law requests, and the results do not uphold Florida’s vaunted reputation for transparency.

“If you asked for records in Florida 10 years ago, you’d get them about 39 percent of the time,” he says. “Well, now it’s dropped to about 35 percent of the time, and Florida ranked 31st in the nation for transparency on the ground, in real access to records.”

That trend has only accelerated under the current occupant of the Florida governor’s mansion.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before in 30-plus years,” Petersen says. “Gov. DeSantis is doing everything he can to obliterate the public’s right of access.”

Perks of the Office

In January, a Florida trial judge issued a stunning ruling in a public records lawsuit, declaring that DeSantis could invoke executive privilege to withhold records from the public.

The ruling was especially alarming because executive privilege—a nebulous power of the federal executive—simply did not exist in Florida law, nor had it ever been invoked by prior governors.

“There is no executive privilege in Florida,” says Petersen, whose group filed an amicus brief opposing the DeSantis administration’s position. “There’s never been, to our knowledge, an assertion of executive privilege in Florida, and this assertion was far broader than the limited executive privilege at the federal level.”

The DeSantis administration had been fishing for a judge willing to go along with its arguments. Three flatly rejected its executive privilege claims, but a Leon County Circuit Court judge was willing to play along. That ruling is now being appealed.

Where the courts have been unwilling to help the governor’s power grabs, the Florida Legislature, stacked with DeSantis allies, has been more than ready to step in. This year, state legislators also passed a bill making the governor’s travel records secret.

The law applies retroactively and covers DeSantis’ use of state planes throughout his time as governor. It would also cover records related to visitors to the governor’s mansion. Republicans claim that this was about safety issues, but the fact that it applied retroactively to previous trips somewhat gave away the game.

The DeSantis administration has also been routing records requests for other agencies to its legal office, creating months of delays for local and national media. The local outlet News 6 obtained a log of hundreds of requests that were routed to the governor’s legal office for secondary “review” (including one from Reason).

These delays keep news outlets from reporting on matters of public interest. For example, Reason waited more than eight months—and paid over $500 for—communications concerning the DeSantis administration’s efforts to yank the liquor licenses of venues that hosted drag shows.

Many courts have not looked as kindly on these tactics as the Leon County judge did. A different judge in the same circuit ruled in 2022 that the DeSantis administration violated the Sunshine Law when it refused to promptly provide the Florida Center for Government Accountability with records on its decision to use state funds to fly migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.

Petersen says it was “the first time in Florida history that a governor had been found in violation of the public records law, and we’ve had a public records law since 1909.” That ruling is also being appealed.

These battles will directly affect how well Florida citizens can keep tabs on their own government. Consider the ways transparency and records retention laws have dominated presidential politics, between Hillary Clinton’s private server and Donald Trump’s bathroom full of classified documents.

Even if you hate the media, remember that Florida’s public records law has a fee-shifting provision. That means when DeSantis’ office loses a freedom of information lawsuit, the state has to pay lawyer fees for the plaintiff. For example, the administration’s petulant refusal to hand over COVID-19 data ended with the state of Florida being forced to pay $7,500 in taxpayers’ money to lawyers for the Orlando Sentinel. Does that sound like the libs being owned?

When a governor has contempt for the state’s public records law, that trickles down to state and local agencies as well. “Those flaws are magnified when you have someone like DeSantis in office,” Petersen says. “We’re seeing ridiculous delays. We’re seeing ridiculous fees.”

Florida Man Doing Fine

The anti-transparency atmosphere in Florida has been a boon for any Florida Man on the make. In April, a state ethics panel concluded that there was probable cause to believe Rep. Fine abused his position as a state lawmaker when he threatened the Special Olympics event in West Melbourne, but this was barely a setback for him.

Despite having no prior experience in higher education administration, Fine was reportedly hand-picked by DeSantis to be the new chancellor of Florida Atlantic University. When the state abruptly suspended the university’s search after three finalists were announced, there were unconfirmed rumors that this was because Fine didn’t make the shortlist. Fine has since turned on DeSantis and endorsed Trump, a move DeSantis called “pure politics,” according to Politico.

We may never know the details of this little imbroglio. Last year, the Florida Legislature passed a bill making much of public universities’ hiring search for presidents secret.

Florida Man is often funny, but what he’s doing to the Sunshine Law “really is quite serious,” Cuillier says.

“And it’s happening little by little every year, like we’re like frogs in the kettle,” he continues. “People just kind of notice it a little bit, but it’s not abrupt enough to lead to pushback. It’s really important that we, as citizens, hold firm on this and demand our leaders be transparent in doing our business. If this continues, we’re going to be in a sorry state.”

The post Monkey Herpes, Face Eating, and the Pork Chop Gang: How Public Records Laws Created the Florida Man appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/AFVcy10
via IFTTT

Kissinger: America’s Most Prolific War Criminal

Kissinger: America’s Most Prolific War Criminal

Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

Henry Kissinger is dead at 100.

He rose to power from humble beginnings. His middle-class Jewish family escaped Germany for the United States in 1938. After graduating high school and attending one year of college (studying accounting, of all things), Kissinger would enlist in the Army and serve in Germany until 1947.

Upon his return to the States, and through the advice of a mentor, he would gain admission to Harvard, where he excelled as an undergraduate and graduate student. His academic career at Harvard, starting in 1951, was also the beginning of his professional trajectory. Kissinger would establish himself as an important foreign policy theorist and a “recognized expert on the role of nuclear weapons in American foreign policy.” At the same time, by way of his position at Harvard, he would forge relationships with prominent American and foreign political figures. Kissinger’s network, and really his scope of influence, would further grow after his 1955 appointment to the Council of Foreign Relations, where he was brought in contact with “many of the most powerful men in the nation” including the Rockefellers.

Through the later 1950s and into the 1960s, Kissinger would cement himself as a best-selling author (Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy in 1957) and prolific writer. For all the talk of Kissinger’s genius (then and now), many of his ideas at that time were unoriginal, illogical, and near-delusional. For example, in Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, Kissinger argued in favor of limited nuclear war (as opposed to all-out nuclear war). To avoid the escalation from limited nuclear war to all-out nuclear war – a very real and obvious danger – Kissinger proposed conditions by which such a war could take place, such as using “diplomacy to convey to our opponent what we understand by limited nuclear war, or at least what limitations we are willing to observe.” He argued that “a war which began as a limited nuclear war would have the advantage that its limitations could have been established” in advance of hostilities. These ideas were as ludicrous then as they are now, and were criticized as such after publication. As one writer more recently observed, “Kissinger’s limited nuclear war had to be conceived and waged as an Ivy League fencing match.”

Kissinger would eventually obtain a tenured professorship at Harvard in 1962. Yet he was not destined for academia; his appetite was for high-stakes policymaking. He was the foreign policy advisor for Nelson Rockefeller’s failed presidential campaigns and in 1968, when Nixon won the Republican nomination, Kissinger made it clear that he wanted to be part of the potential Nixon Administration. (Kissinger was adept enough to leave open the possibility of a position in the Humphrey administration, had he defeated Nixon.)

The lengths Kissinger might go to assist then-candidate Nixon – and thus ensure Kissinger’s ascent – were revealed in 1968, as President Lyndon B. Johnson sought to begin peace negotiations and bring about an end to the Vietnam War. This would undoubtedly benefit Democrat candidate Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Nixon learned of that peace effort via leaks from Kissinger, who was serving as an advisor to President Johnson and attended the Paris Peace talks with the North Vietnamese. Nixon then instructed his closest advisor, H.R. Haldeman, to “monkey wrench” the negotiations. The South Vietnamese were pressured to “hold firm” by Nixon’s allies. With the understanding that Nixon could deliver better terms, the South Vietnamese boycotted the talks. Nixon would win the election. Over 25,000 more Americans would die in Vietnam before the war eventually concluded.

Kissinger’s duplicity was rewarded with his appointment of National Security Advisor after Nixon took office in 1969. Seizing on Nixon’s distrust of the State Department, Kissinger executed a “quiet coup” to exclude other agencies and officials from the foreign policy decision-making process (an idea Nixon liked), effectively guaranteeing his “position as the foreign policy czar.”

This structure allowed for streamlined decisions, Executive control, a reduction in bureaucratic meddling, and secrecy. Beginning in the Spring of 1969 through 1973, the Nixon and Kissinger conducted a secret and illegal and extensive bombing operation (codenamed MENU) of purported North Vietnamese routes and alleged headquarters in Cambodia. The architect and overseer of this plan was Kissinger. In fact, Kissinger maneuvered to ensure Nixon’s approval of the plan after the Secretary of State objected.

In the first 14 months of the operation (codenamed MENU), there would be a total of 3,630 flights dropping 110,000 tons of bombs. In total, U.S. planes “dropped 500,000 or more tons of munitions.” Gunships would rake children. The Nixon Administration and Kissinger conspired to keep the carpet bombings secret while Kissinger oversaw its execution and “approved each of the 3,875 Cambodia bombing raids” with “full knowledge of it effect on civilians.” Kissinger’s instructions for strikes (following Nixon’s demands) weren’t to hit military targets, but “anything that moves.” Many times, innocent Cambodian villages would be “hit with dozens of payloads over the course of several hours. The result was near-total destruction.”

Sites bombed in Cambodia (source: Yale).

Interviews of Cambodian victims by The Intercept reveal the first-person horror. One woman described what she experienced as a young girl, stating “At around 10 a.m., an airplane dropped a bomb on my home. My parents and four siblings were all killed.” Thousands of others had similar stories: “I lost my mother, father, sisters, brothers, everyone.” It is estimated that as many as 150,000 civilians were killed – all at the direction of Henry Kissinger.  

Subscribers to The Reactionary can read the rest here…

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/02/2023 – 23:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ds0MZRD Tyler Durden

TEXIT Progress: Secession Question Expected To Appear on 2024 Texas Primary Ballot

TEXIT Progress: Secession Question Expected To Appear on 2024 Texas Primary Ballot

As the US government hurtles toward insolvency while political and cultural divisions intensify across the country, Texans are poised to take their long-simmering flirtation with secession to the next level, as a non-binding proposition is expected to appear on the statewide GOP primary ballot in March 2024.  

On Friday, the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) announced that it had obtained the number of signatures required to compel the Republican Party of Texas to include this question on the primary ballot: “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?”

The party’s State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) is meeting this weekend to finalize the list of ballot propositions. According to TNM, the SREC’s wishes are not relevent, as the Texas Election Code empowers voters to place a proposition on a ballot by collecting the signatures of 97,709 Texans who want the question to appear. TNM says it has more than 102,000. 

“We could actually bypass the SREC’s ballot proposition process and compel the party to place the question on the ballot,” said TNM President Daniel Miller in a Friday letter submitted to the SREC in support of the proposition. He emphasized that including the proposition doesn’t equate to a Texas GOP endorsement of secession. Rather, he wrote, ballot propositions serve as a means of pursuing clarity as to the “greatest concerns of Republican voters.”

The drive for statewide votes on secession has spanned several years. While the SREC’s resolutions committee added it to a preliminary list in 2015, the SREC struck it. At the party’s 2016 convention, a plank calling for a statewide referendum of all voters was forwarded for inclusion in the Texas GOP platform, only for it to be struck down by the Permanent Platform Committee.

Later Republican plank attempts were successful. The SREC will be under greater pressure to green-light the primary ballot proposition on Saturday, given presence of two planks in the current Texas GOP platform

  • Plank 33, addressing “state sovereignty,” asserts that “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto.”
  • Plank 225, “Texas Independence,” urges the legislature to require a general election referendum “for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.”

“Whether you are for, against, or undecided TEXIT, we should all be able to agree that the platform matters, the Texas Bill of Rights matters, and the Republican voters matter,” said TNM’s Miller in his letter to the SREC.

A “TEXIT” sticker on a pickup truck (via Texas Nationalist Movement store)

The GOP primary proposition won’t have any power of law, but is sure to intensify discussion of the idea inside Texas and out. Secessionists in other states are keeping a close eye on the Texas secession movement, seeing it as a flagship that, if successful, will accelerate the trend elsewhere.

Covering the latest development in Texas, the anonymous, non-Texan author of the Red-State Secession Substack newsletter argues…

If Texas eventually withdraws from the Union, other red states will suddenly realize they need to follow. If Texas announces a future independence date, red states will have a choice to make: stay in a Union dominated by blue states, or follow Texas’ lead.

Since a Republican can’t win a presidential election without Texas’ electoral votes, the red states will have to follow Texas to avoid the tyranny, perversion, and bankruptcy that incompetent Democrat rule will bring to the remainder of the US… even if these states hadn’t favored secession until presented with this dilemma.

After seceding from Mexico, Texas was an independent country from 1836 to 1845 and, economically, is extraordinarily well-suited for independence today. It’s by far the largest oil producer of any US state, accounting for a whopping 42% of American production, with no other state exceeding even 10%. It has deep-water ports, abundant agriculture, and is a major high-tech hub. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/02/2023 – 22:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ted98QP Tyler Durden

Steve Calabresi: The Amar Brief in Moore Should Not Be Embraced: Part 2

My Northwestern colleague, Steve Calabresi, asked me to post this on his behalf:

In an earlier post on the Volokh Conspiracy, I described Professors Akhil Reed Amar’s and Vikram David Amar’s disagreement with an amicus brief that former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Professor Gary Lawson, and I filed in Moore v. United States.  An issue in that case is whether a wealth tax is a “direct tax”, which has to be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations.  The Amar brothers claim that the only things that are direct taxes are capitation (head) taxes and land taxes.  They say falsely that on their side they have George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, the three Supreme Court justices who wrote opinions in the 1796 case, Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171, Abraham Lincoln, and Chief Justice John Roberts.  I completely and totally disagree.

First, all that George Washington did or said that is relevant to this case is that he asked Alexander Hamilton to defend in the Supreme Court a federal tax statute that said it imposed a duty, which is an indirect tax, on the use of carriages, which in the 1790’s were luxury goods subject to duties in England and Massachusetts.  Washington expressed no opinion whatsoever on the line between direct and indirect taxes.

Second, Alexander Hamilton himself said in his brief for the United States in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796) that:

“The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes.

Capitation or poll taxes.
Taxes on lands and buildings.
General assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate; all else must of necessity be considered as indirect taxes.”

In other words, Alexander Hamilton himself said that wealth taxes were direct taxes in Hylton.  Now to be fair to the Amar brothers, it is true that on other occasions Hamilton said direct taxes were only capitations or land taxes, but Hamilton was the most nationalist member of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention.  He favored a President and a Senate that served for life terms; the abolition of the states; and the federal appointment of “territorial” governors.  Alexander Hamilton was without a doubt the most nationalist of the Framers at Philadelphia, and even he admitted that a wealth tax was a direct tax in his brief in Hylton v. United States.

Third, the Amar brothers left out of their brief the following very relevant statement by Justice Samuel Chase:

“As it was incumbent on the plaintiff’s counsel in error, so they took great pains to prove that the tax on carriages was a direct tax: but they did not satisfy my mind.  *** I think, an annual tax on carriages for the conveyance of persons, may be considered as within the power granted to congress to lay duties [which are indirect taxes].  *** I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation *** and a tax on land.”

Justice Chase thus went out of his way to say that the very language in his opinion which the Amar brothers rely on is dicta and not the holding.

Fourth, the Amar brothers say nothing at all about the understanding in the state ratifying conventions at a time when the proceedings at the Philadelphia Convention were still a deeply kept secret.  The Philadelphia proceedings were kept a secret on purpose so that the original understanding by the Thirteen State Ratifying Conventions of the Philadelphia Convention’s text would prevail over the private intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.  Astonishingly, the Amar brothers even tout as a virtue the fact that one of the three justices to render an opinion, in Hylton, Justice William Paterson, the author of the failed New Jersey Plan at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, attended and knew what had happened at the Philadelphia Ratifying Convention, and then broke the Convention’s secrecy rules about its own deliberations!  Support from such a duplicitous loser at Philadelphia would seem to count against and not in favor of reliance on the miscreant’s actions.

The Amar brothers rely on Justice Patterson who grouses about his loss at the Philadelphia Convention to southerners who were worried about northern taxation of slaves and undeveloped land in the South. But, Justice Patterson specifically says that

If congress, for instance, should tax, in the aggregate or mass, things that generally pervade all the states in the Union, then, perhaps, the rule of apportionment would be the most proper, especially if an assessment was to intervene.  This appears to be the practice of some of the states, to have been considered as a direct tax.  Whether it be so, under the constitution of the United States is a matter of some difficulty; but as it is not before the court, it would be improper to give any decisive opinion upon it.”

Justice Iredell says only that since the carriage tax cannot be apportioned, it must be a duty, which is what Congress called it when it was passed, i.e. an indirect tax.  He never directly says that direct taxes are only capitations or land taxes.

In any event, Hylton was a feigned case over which the Supreme Court did not even have jurisdiction.  Brief of Amici Curiae Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and Professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson Supporting Petitioners at 26-27.

What really matters is what was said and understood at the state ratifying conventions since it was those conventions, and not the back room deals that were made about slavery at Philadelphia, which made the Constitution the supreme law of the land. Future Chief Justice John Marshall speaking at the Virginia Ratifying convention said: “The objects of direct taxes are well understood.”  Marshal listed them as “Lands, slaves, stock [i.e., business capital] of all kinds, and a few other articles of domestic property.”  Future Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth speaking at the Connecticut Ratifying Convention said that targets of direct taxes included (he did not say “were limited to” the “tools of a man’s business … necessary utensils of his family” thus corroborating Marshall’s references to “stock” and “domestic property.” After the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, delegates in the Anti-Federalist minority, which cared deeply about the direct/indirect taxes line, issued a statement that identified the subjects of direct taxes as those on polls (as confirmed by the Constitution) and on “land, cattle, trades, occupations, etc.”  The “Federal Farmer”, a highly regarded Anti-Federalist paper lists as objects of Congress power of direct taxation, “polls, lands, houses, labour, etc.”  See generally, Robert Natelson, What the Constitution Means by “Duties, Imposts, and Excises” – and “Taxes” (Direct or Otherwise), 66 Case West. L. Rev. 297, 308-09 (2015).  See also Erik M. Jensen, The Apportionment of “Direct Taxes”: Are Consumption Taxes Constitutional?, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 2334 (1997).

Abraham Lincoln correctly believed, along with the Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson amicus brief, that federal income taxes were indirect taxes because they involved a transaction where a man sells his labor for a price. In general, direct taxes are those, which fall “straight” on a person like a capitation or wealth tax, and indirect taxes are those that fall on a “transaction” like a tariff, a sales tax, a gift tax, an income tax, or a transaction.

The Constitution uses the words “Duties, Imposts, and Excises – all of which are subject to the rule of uniformity, not apportionment—as being in the words of the Hylton v. United States opinion writers “indirect taxes.”

Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English Language defines the word “indirect” in the phrase ‘indirect taxes” to have the following undesirable meanings in the 1790’s:

Indire’ct.adj.

[indirect, Fr. indirectus, Lat.]
1. Not strait; not rectilinear. 
2. Not tending otherwise than obliquely or consequentially to a point; as, an indirect accusation. 
3. Wrong; improper.

The tender prince
Would fain to have come with me to meet your grace;
But by his mother was perforce with-held.
—— Fy, what an indirect and peevish course
Is this of hers?
Shakespeare’sRichard III.

4. Not fair; not honest.

Think you, that any means under the sun
Can assecure so indirect a course?
Daniel’sCivil War.

Those things which they do know they may, upon sundry indirect considerations, let pass; and although themselves do not err, yet may they deceive others.

Hooker.

O pity and shame! that they who to live well
Enter’d so fair, should turn aside, to tread
Paths indirect.
Milton.

Indirect dealing will be discovered one time or other, and then he loses his reputation.
Tillotson.

A federal wealth tax, like a capitation, or federal real estate tax would fall “straight” upon the taxpayer, and it would not fall in a “rectilinear” or “oblique” way.  Indirect taxes are on transactions like importing goods; paying a sales tax; inheriting money; receiving a gift of money; or exchanging your labor for a salary.  This is why Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), which held that rental income from land, was a direct tax was wrongly decided and elicited such a cry of concern from the left, the right, and the center in American politics.  In the wake of that decision, many leftists called for abolishing the. direct/indirect line in the Taxation Clause altogether.

President William Howard Taft deliberately and knowingly chose a much narrower formulation for the Sixteenth Amendment – one that is consistent with Taft’s constitutional philosophy.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Nothing in here about authorizing wealth taxes, Professor Bruce Ackerman.  Nothing in here , Professor Ackerman, about taxing unrealized capital gains in violation of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).  See Brief amici curiae of Professors of Law and Linguistics in support of neither party filed Sept. 6, 2023.

The linguistics-oriented amicus brief just cited uses a corpus linguistics approach to the original understanding of “We the People” who ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, which reveals that it covered only realized capital gains.  I understand that the original understanding of tax law professors, in 1913, was that income was any accretion to wealth, but the people who made the Sixteenth Amendment law understood it as requiring realization of capital gains.  Sorry again, Professor Ackerman, but Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) was rightly decided given the original public meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment!

The Amar brothers are right that a few people at the Framing, like Justice Chase, in his Hylton v. United States dicta expected as an original matter that the Direct Taxes Clauses would be applied only to capitations and land taxes.  But, a few people at the Framing thought the Commerce Clause was only about trade and barter and not about recreational traveling by land or boat, with or without lottery tickets, across state lines.  And, more than a few people—in fact most people—expected when the Equal Protection Clause was enacted that it was somehow consistent with segregated public schools and laws against interracial marriage.

Today, we realize that it is gross error to rely on the original expected applications of the Constitution as opposed to the plain meaning of its text.  Jack Balkin, Living Originalism (2011).  This is true of the text in clauses that granted power, like the Commerce; Necessary and Proper; and Taxation Clauses, see National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (which is correct as to the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Taxation Clauses).  The tax penalty for failing to buy health insurance in NFIB v. Sebelius only kicked in for those who owed more than some $43,000 a year on their income taxes, which are exempted from the requiring of “apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”  U.S. Const. amdm. XVI.

The plain meaning of the text obviously trumps original expected applications that school segregation, or anti-miscegenation laws, are consistent with the birth equality conferred by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution, A Biography 349-392 (2005).  And, for the same reasons, the original meaning of “direct” taxes as being all such taxes that fall straight on an individual and not on a transaction trump Justice Samuel Chases sloppy original expectation, expressed only in what he admits is dicta, that “direct taxes” are only land and capitation taxes.   Other taxes, like a wealth tax, fall straight upon a person as well as capitation and land taxes.

“We must remember that it is a Constitution we are expounding.  McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).  “Let the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”  Id.  Prohibiting a national wealth tax without apportionment according to the census, is plainly adopted to achieving the end of the Direct Tax Clauses.  Such a prohibition consists with “the letter and spirit of the constitution” and is thus appropriate as that word is defined in McCullough v. Maryland.

 

The post Steve Calabresi: The Amar Brief in Moore Should Not Be Embraced: Part 2 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/vXO58uP
via IFTTT

Congressional Commission Urges US To Expand Nuclear Arsenal Amid China, Russia Threat

Congressional Commission Urges US To Expand Nuclear Arsenal Amid China, Russia Threat

Authored by Andre Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

U.S. Capitol building in Washington on Nov. 8, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

The United States must expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal beyond planned improvements to deter combined aggression from communist China and Russia, according to a new congressional report.

Planned nuclear capacity “limits” the United States’ ability to effectively prevent a war with China and Russia, says the report (pdf) by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

“Given current threat trajectories, our nation will soon encounter a fundamentally different global setting than it has ever experienced: we will face a world where two nations possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own,” the report says.

“The size and composition of the nuclear force must account for the possibility of combined aggression from Russia and China.”

The report emphasizes that a new conflict with either or both of the powers could realistically result in nuclear catastrophe and would need to be deterred.

There is a growing risk of confrontation with China, Russia, or both. This includes the risk of military conflict,” the report says.

“Unlike World Wars I and II, a major power conflict in the 21st century has the potential to escalate into a large-scale nuclear war.”

US Nuclear Forces ‘Not Sufficient’ for Deterrence

In all, the report says that current plans for modernization of the nation’s nuclear forces are “necessary, but not sufficient,” given the increasing capability of China and Russia to jointly threaten the United States with their nuclear arsenals.

Deployed strategic nuclear force requirements will increase for the United States in such a threat environment,” the report says.

Hudson Institute senior fellow Marshall Billingslea, who co-authored the report, said a key factor in the commission’s decision-making was the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal.

“They’re on pace to either rival or perhaps surpass the number of fielded nuclear weapons that we ourselves possess,” Mr. Billingslea said during a Nov. 30 talk at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“Let’s be clear, when you have a China that has gone from, let’s say, around 250 nuclear weapons to … around 700 by 2027 … that’s a fundamental game changer.”

Mr. Billingslea’s comments referred to the Pentagon’s most recent China Military Power Report, which found that the regime likely already has 500 deployed nuclear warheads and will have more than 1,000 by 2030.

Moreover, because of China’s size and economic power, he said the nation cannot rely on coercive economic methods to bring China to the nonproliferation table.

“When you’re talking about China, which has an economy nearly as large as ours … some of the tools that we traditionally have relied upon to deal with the Russias and the Irans and the Venezuelas and the North Koreas, are simply not available in a Chinese context.”

As such, he said the commission recommended the United States increase the number of its “shorter and medium-range” missiles and invest in “hypersonics” to deploy both nuclear and conventional weapons.

“The sheer increase in the number of targets implied by this Chinese buildup … [suggests] that the program of record that was foreseen back in 2010 is not sufficient,” he said.

Similarly, Hudson Institute senior fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs, also a co-author of the report, said the new posture was necessary to counter a united China and Russia, which have entered an unprecedented comprehensive strategic partnership.

“What the report finds is that the United States must be able to deter both Russia and China simultaneously,” Ms. Heinrichs said.

That’s obviously going to change the United States’ strategic posture.”

Selling the idea of supplemental spending for nuclear weapons may not be an easy task. Concerns about war profiteering are growing amid unprecedented defense spending by the Biden administration.

Additionally, the Hudson Institute’s close financial relationship with key defense corporations may diminish its credibility with some in Congress. According to the organization’s financials (pdf), defense contractors gave the think tank more than half a million dollars last year.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/02/2023 – 22:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/s5CrQ8t Tyler Durden

Cryptos Soar After Largest Inflows In Two Years

Cryptos Soar After Largest Inflows In Two Years

Anticipation of an eventual US spot Bitcoin ETF – which Bloomberg’s analysts assign a 90% probability of being approved by the SEC in January…

… as well as surging prices, have helped to spur inflows into digital-asset investment products for a ninth consecutive week, the largest run since the crypto bull market in late 2021.

According to a recent report from CoinShares, these products which include trusts and exchange-traded products, saw inflows of $346 million last week, with Canada and Germany contributing to 87% of the total. Only $30 million came from the US, a sign of continued low participation from the country, the asset-management firm said. Of course, that will change as soon as investors start seeing double digit percentage weekly gains, and reallocating their money into crypto in droves, just like they did in 2020 and 2021.

Since early October, the crypto market has surged as traditional asset managers like BlackRock prepared for spot Bitcoin ETFs, potentially bringing in many more investors into the asset and resulting in inflows of tens of billions in fresh capital.

“The combination of price rises and inflows have now pushed up total assets under management to $45.3 billion, the highest in over one and half years,” the report said.

Bitcoin products raked in $312 million last week, pushing inflows to over $1.5 billion since the start of the year. Ether products saw $34 million in inflows last week, almost negating outflows all of 2023.

Amid the surging inflows, and amid expectations for imminent ETF approval by the SEC and a surge in March rate cuts odds, bitcoin and ethereum have continued their furious ascent, with the former now trading just shy of $40,

 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/02/2023 – 21:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3PwV2iR Tyler Durden

Megyn Kelly’s New Media Moment

Megyn Kelly’s New Media Moment

Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Wire,

Megyn Kelly was worried. And more recently, indignant. Righteously, of course.

She craved another chance and felt confident, while watching from home, that she could deliver in a way that was a hell of a lot better than the competition, harboring the sort of personal ambition and professional jealousy that develop as a matter of course in all who have fought for survival in prime time.

Talent and earned experience and the trust of a large audience. She has had all of it. The only thing she needed now was a television network. And so, she will borrow one.

She is set to return as a debate moderator next week to referee the fourth Republican presidential debate, this one in Tuscaloosa, Ala., and this time on NewsNation as part of a partnership with that network, Sirius XM, and the Free Beacon. It is a noteworthy milestone; she had a front-row seat eight years ago to the rise of populism. It is also a test of the new media; she bridled a similar kind of populism to continue her career.

And that’s why, for just a while, she worried. Independent journalists don’t often get to call marquee prize fights. But Megyn Kelly does.

Malpractice, absolute journalistic malpractice!” That’s how Kelly describes the most explosive exchange from the Miami debate moderated by NBC News anchors Lester Holt and Kristen Welker. Nikki Haley had called Vivek Ramaswamy “scum” after the businessman took a shot at her adult daughter. Reliving the moment in an interview with RealClearPolitics, Kelly was incredulous: “And the moderator did not stop to say, ‘Wait, did you just call him scum? Mr. Ramaswamy. Do you care to respond?’”

“How did that not happen?” she asks before immediately offering an answer. “Because these moderators are too tied to their written questions. They’re not nimble. They are afraid to deviate from what their producers put in front of them. That isn’t good television!”

“There’s a reason why they call it broadcast journalism. It’s not just about journalism. It’s also about seizing the moment,” she explains. “You feel the moment, go with the moment.”

Kelly could have just as easily been describing her own career. A trial lawyer before entering journalism, Kelly jumped from the courtroom to cable news to network television over the last two decades.

And then the wilderness. Veteran journalists who go it alone hardly ever regain prominence. Some decamp to college campuses. Others write books. Most generally fade. Kelly, instead, seized the digital moment.

Three years ago, after an unsuccessful stint at NBC News, she launched “The Megyn Kelly Show,” a daily podcast that was later picked up on Sirius XM and that posts on YouTube, where her interviews regularly attract millions of viewers. Professional indifference, as much as independence, was an advertised feature of the new venture. The name of her production company: “Devil May Care Media.”

“Fourth or fifth acts in broadcast media are rare,” explains Brian Stelter, “and she is pulling it off.” Hardly a conservative fanboy, the veteran media reporter and former host of CNN’s Reliable Sources occasionally tunes in to the show during his commute, programming he described as “a hard-right, anti-woke rage fest.” But Stelter admits the Kelly renaissance “is a pretty rare success story.”  

A seat at the desk of a presidential debate, though, the crown jewel of any career in political journalism? Even Kelly felt that would be out of reach “this time around.” Those gigs traditionally go to legacy media, and for good reason. Deep pockets, not to mention a wealth of experience, are needed to pull off a prize fight in prime time. All the same, Kelly says she “wound up with three different offers to co-moderate a debate.” But even with NewsNation handling all the technical logistics, would the ordeal be worth the fuss?

Former President Donald Trump has walked away from the stage, leaving his primary challengers to cannibalize each other as they trail by more than 45 points. “Does it matter at all?” she asked herself when deciding whether to moderate an undercard debate without the biggest name in politics. Sequels often fall flat, and her first debate had catapulted her to the journalism equivalent of superstardom.

It has now been eight years since Trump and Kelly, then of Fox News, clashed at the first Republican presidential debate. A stampede of magazine writers followed.

“Blowhards, Beware,” declared Vanity Fair in 2016, “Megyn Kelly Will Slay You Now.” And later Vogue dubbed her “Megyn Unbound” as she prepared to decamp Fox for NBC the next year, speculating that, once split from the conservative news juggernaut, she could finally be “a force for good.” Eventually, the names of the magazines that profiled her said as much about her career as the interviews: Variety, then Success, and finally More.

The quotes changed. The formula for each glossy cover story stayed the same. An elegant photo shoot, a couple thousand words complete with anecdotes about unscripted off-air moments, deviations on one common theme. One gushing headline summed up the shared sentiment: “Megyn Kelly Always Wins.”

She chuckles at that past coverage, and then the new queen of independent journalism returns to a no-brainer for anyone else with a byline. “In the end, I concluded, yes,” Kelly says of her reason for reprising her role as debate moderator, noting that “Trump is vulnerable in some unique ways” – from the frontrunner’s legal jeopardy to, “with all due respect,” the septuagenarian’s health. Between the Thanksgiving holiday and debate prep sessions, she insists “there are all sorts of reasons” for the GOP to consider “at least the next best option.” One of the candidates not named Trump “could pull an inside straight,” she muses. “It’s not likely,” Kelly concludes, “but who am I to rule it out?”

Haley, Ramaswamy, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have qualified for that contest. None would likely appreciate her analysis of their chances. All of them know her already, however, and there is a level of comfort with Kelly inside party headquarters and among the grassroots. She may not be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. She can at least speak their language.

“This does get to an interesting tension point about the debates,” Stelter mused. “Who should be asking the questions: Should it be Hugh Hewitt and Megyn Kelly, or Lester Holt and Bret Baier?” In his estimation, since going independent, the woman once crowned “the First Lady of Fox,” someone who cultivated a brand as “unpredictable,” has become reliably “more Rush Limbaugh than Brit Hume.”

It was Hume who first spotted Kelly and passed her demo tape along to Fox News brass, who eagerly recruited her to be a reporter. The rest is history, including a cautionary tale about cultivating talent. According to talk show host Erick Erickson, NBC drafted Kelly without an adequate plan to leverage her conservative celebrity. “They could have built a credible brand around Megyn,” he says, “but chose not to because she did not have enough of a left-wing orthodoxy.”

Erickson, like many others on the right, was quick to celebrate her return to the moderator role. “She can speak the language of the people from whom she came,” he explains, “even though she’s been elevated into this New York world of the media.”

Conservatives have long loved to hate the media, and moderators are no exception. Ramaswamy delighted the right with his modest proposal at the last debate that Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson should be calling the contest. Kelly arguably has more mainstream appeal, less baggage, and better hair than all of them. And according to Erickson, a unique kind of credibility. “You don’t have to be a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy to be taken seriously by conservatives,” he insisted. “You just have to be willing to treat them as humans with valid opinions.”

Kelly won’t sign any party membership card. “I’m a registered independent,” she says to almost preempt her admission in the next breath that “my sensibilities are center-right.” And so, when she takes her seat behind the desk in Alabama and looks out over the field of candidates, she won’t bother with a view from nowhere. On the eve of that contest, Kelly advertises “complete fluency” in the ideological concerns of conservatives. And then she offers up a professional disclaimer directed at the politicians she will square up with: “I’m never going to share a jersey with these people.”

“Am I willing to vote for a Democrat over a Republican at the presidential level these days? I’ll be honest, probably not. I have voted for plenty of Democrats in the past, but the world is so insane right now, and I’ve become almost a single-issue voter on what we’re doing to children in the trans lane,” she admits.

“But my point is even though I’m probably rooting for these guys over a Democrat, you won’t be able to tell that on debate night, and that’s all you can ask of a good moderator. They don’t have to have no politics. They don’t have to have no ideology. They have to be able to check it. They go out there such that both sides are satisfied that this person was tough but fair,” she continues.

Each of the candidates who will walk on stage next week has sat for in-depth interviews with her already, and even Trump made peace with her. Of course, it was only temporary. That segment included a lengthy cross-examination about his handling of classified documents, and days after it aired, hostilities resumed. “She was pretty nasty,” the former president complained to an Iowa crowd, “didn’t you think?” Kelly could care less.

She already got the interview. Now she’s about to get her debate, a contest she playfully likens to “a dinner party” where her role is that of the “bad host” who chooses chaos. “Instead of introducing fun topics on which guests might agree, you’re introducing the thorny ones,” Kelly says, laying out in broad strokes her plans for the evening. Should any of the candidates arrive low energy, she warns, well, “Maybe you take out the cattle prod.”

She plans to invite arguments and doesn’t expect “a hug” from anyone on stage afterward. “As soon as you declare yourself a presidential candidate, we’re not friends,” Kelly explains. The biggest bully in politics helped solidify that fact in her mind: “The nature of the relationship becomes adversarial. And as much as Trump came after me and made my life unpleasant after the 2015 debate, he wasn’t wrong.”

“I threw a punch at him that was considerable, and he threw many, many punches back. You could argue it was excessive. I certainly think it was. But my point is simply that part of it is accepting your role as someone who these guys are not going to like that much. If you’re doing it right, they shouldn’t,” she says, recalling her first big brush with the populist who went on to the presidency.

She talks in calculated, almost cold-blooded, terms but her inviting tone never loses its warmth. Such is the duality of Megyn Kelly: She is as disarming and kind as any suburban mom anywhere, and yet she has a plan to end the career of any unprepared politician she meets.

Scott Walker has tangled with Kelly before, and the former Wisconsin governor, who now serves as president of the Young America’s Foundation, has blunt advice for any 2024 candidates who might be tempted to underestimate the blonde brawler: Don’t.

“Just because she articulates conservative views doesn’t mean any of the candidates will get a pass from her,” Walker cautions. “They’d better be bringing their A-game to the debate stage.”

While her confrontation of Trump eight years ago dominates the memory of that contest, her questions to the rest of the field were no less aggressive. For instance, she didn’t lob a softball and invite Walker to explain why he opposed abortion. She threw high and inside. “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?” Kelly asked. The governor kept his balance, defended his position, and answered that his pro-life position was “in line with everyday America.”

Others weren’t so lucky that night, as Kelly weaved right as quickly as she bobbed left. One moment, she asked former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who had leaned on Scripture to justify his expansion of Medicaid, why conservative voters, “who generally want to shrink government” should “believe you won’t use your Saint Peter analogy to expand all government?” The next, she hit him with this question: “If you had a son or daughter who was gay or lesbian, how would you explain to them your opposition to same-sex marriage?”

The left-right routine was enough to win Kelly praise from all corners. Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, declared Kelly “the toughest person on the debate stage,” while Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the eventual Democratic nominee the next year, said the moderators had raised “the quality of the debate.”

Campaigns are rewatching that debate and pulling clips from her show to prepare. “They should review my show,” she laughs. “It’s full of interesting content. They won’t find clues in there, though.” Kelly stubbornly refuses to talk outside of school. She says only that she and her co-moderators, Elizabeth Vargas of NewsNation and Eliana Johnson of the Washington Free Beacon, will be “unsparing.” The trio has binders full of “A+ level questions” designed to shove candidates off their talking points and into real moments of conflict.

“If the three of us could shrink into obscurity that night, it would be a total win. If it’s just all about the three of them, or four of them, and not at all about the three of us, that would be great,” Kelly says.

The four of them? “I know Trump loves Alabama. I do know this,” she says of a perhaps hoped-for surprise appearance. “He loves Alabama. So, there’s some possibility he’d decide to show up.” Should that happen, Kelly says the trio of moderators will be prepared. They’ve studied the candidates and the current moment.

“This Republican Party is a far more dynamic, interesting, and complex one than what we had even six to eight years ago,” she reports, before suggesting “that’s probably actually good for the country” and then declaring, “that’s definitely good for a debate.”

Take foreign policy, for instance, the foundation of the previous debate. Kelly cuts the party roughly into thirds for the sake of example. There is “the populist, Trump MAGA wing,” she says, and “then you still have the neoconservatives.” The remainder, in her quick estimation, are “the war-weary” who are skeptical of foreign intervention, “but who aren’t MAGA and certainly aren’t pro-Trump.”

Pick a different issue. Slice, dice, and repeat. “There are a bunch of factions right now in the Republican Party,” she says, in between debate prep sessions, “which for me, as somebody who has a show, a journalist, and as a debate moderator, spells opportunity.”

Familiarity will not lead to fondness, though. The only class Kelly seems to dislike more than politicians are members of the media. So much of her current rise is a reaction to their coverage, or perhaps an antidote. She complains that “the liberals who dominate the news” fail to account for their own biases, let alone check them in any meaningful way. “They’re cheerleaders,” Kelly says, “and that’s why independent media has exploded.”

“The populist rising that we’ve seen in our politics has tilted over to media,” she replies when asked how she fits into that phenomenon. “My own coverage, I wouldn’t describe it as populist, but it is definitely anti-elite and anti-institution because they’ve earned that disdain. And people have had it. They’ve come to understand that these institutions are not rooting for them.”

Next week may be the biggest opportunity yet for independent media when Megyn Kelly returns to live television. She predicts that some of her questions will be objectionable to one wing of the party and acceptable to another. “You have the chance to both please and displease a large constituency,” she says, “which is a win.” 

“No one should be feeling super warm and fuzzy when the debate is over, like they just want to give the debate moderator a hug,” she adds. “They should be feeling like, ‘I loved this stuff. I hated that stuff. Overall, I found it very informative.’”

More than anything, though, Kelly stresses that she and her co-moderators will go with the moment. “We are going to make this entertaining,” she promises. “Trust me when I tell you, we know how. It’ll be fun to watch.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/02/2023 – 21:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/PtLOiNf Tyler Durden