Andrew Marantz, Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation

At Amazon, Andrew Marantz, Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.

Nicki Minaj Causes the Establishment to Go DEFCON One

This story's a laugh riot.

From Jim Geraghty, at National Review.

Critical Race Theory Rapidly Destroying American Health Care

A great, great piece from Katie Herzog, at Bari Weiss's Substack, "What Happens When Doctors Can't Tell the Truth?":

‘People Are Afraid to Speak Honestly’

They meet once a month on Zoom: a dozen doctors from around the country with distinguished careers in different specialities. They vary in ethnicity, age and sexual orientation. Some work for the best hospitals in the U.S. or teach at top medical schools. Others are dedicated to serving the most vulnerable populations in their communities.

The meetings are largely a support group. The members share their concerns about what’s going on in their hospitals and universities, and strategize about what to do. What is happening, they say, is the rapid spread of a deeply illiberal ideology in the country’s most important medical institutions.

This dogma goes by many imperfect names — wokeness, social justice, critical race theory, anti-racism — but whatever it’s called, the doctors say this ideology is stifling critical thinking and dissent in the name of progress. They say that it’s turning students against their teachers and patients and racializing even the smallest interpersonal interactions. Most concerning, they insist that it is threatening the foundations of patient care, of research, and of medicine itself.

These aren’t secret bigots who long for the “good old days” that were bad for so many. They are largely politically progressive, and they are the first to say that there are inequities in medicine that must be addressed. Sometimes it’s overt racism from colleagues or patients, but more often the problem is deeper, baked into the very systems clinicians use to determine treatment.

“There’s a calculator that people have used for decades that predicts the likelihood of having a successful vaginal delivery after you've had a cesarean,” one obstetrician in the Northeast told me. “You put in the age of the person, how much they weigh, and their race. And if they’re black, it calculates that they are less likely to have successful vaginal delivery. That means clinicians are more likely to counsel black patients to get c-sections, a surgery they might not actually need.”

There’s no biological reason for race to be a factor here, which is why the calculator just changed this year. But this is an example of how system-wide bias can harm black mothers, who are two to three times more likely to die in childbirth than white women even when you control for factors like income and education, which often make racial disparities disappear.

But while this obstetrician and others see the problems endemic in their field, they’re also alarmed by the dogma currently spreading throughout medical schools and hospitals.

I’ve heard from doctors who’ve been reported to their departments for criticizing residents for being late. (It was seen by their trainees as an act of racism.) I’ve heard from doctors who’ve stopped giving trainees honest feedback for fear of retaliation. I’ve spoken to those who have seen clinicians and residents refuse to treat patients based on their race or their perceived conservative politics.

Some of these doctors say that there is a “purge” underway in the world of American medicine: question the current orthodoxy and you will be pushed out. They are so worried about the dangers of speaking out about their concerns that they will not let me identify them except by the region of the country where they work.

“People are afraid to speak honestly,” said a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. “It’s like back to the USSR, where you could only speak to the ones you trust.” If the authorities found out, you could lose your job, your status, you could go to jail or worse. The fear here is not dissimilar.

When doctors do speak out, shared another, “the reaction is savage. And you better be tenured and you better have very thick skin.”

“We’re afraid of what's happening to other people happening to us,” a doctor on the West Coast told me. “We are seeing people being fired. We are seeing people's reputations being sullied. There are members of our group who say, ‘I will be asked to leave a board. I will endanger the work of the nonprofit that I lead if this comes out.’ People are at risk of being totally marginalized and having to leave their institutions.”

While the hyper focus on identity is seen by many proponents of social justice ideology as a necessary corrective to America’s past sins, some people working in medicine are deeply concerned by what “justice” and “equity” actually look like in practice.

“The intellectual foundation for this movement is the Marxist view of the world, but stripped of economics and replaced with race determinism,” one psychologist explained. “Because you have a huge group of people, mostly people of color, who have been underserved, it was inevitable that this model was going to be applied to the world of medicine. And it has been.”

‘Whole Areas of Research Are Off-Limits’

“Wokeness feels like an existential threat,” a doctor from the Northwest said. “In health care, innovation depends on open, objective inquiry into complex problems, but that’s now undermined by this simplistic and racialized worldview where racism is seen as the cause of all disparities, despite robust data showing it’s not that simple.”

“Whole research areas are off-limits,” he said, adding that some of what is being published in the nation’s top journals is “shoddy as hell.”

Here, he was referring in part to a study published last year in the Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences. The study was covered all over the news, with headlines like “Black Newborns More Likely to Die When Looked After by White Doctors” (CNN), “The Lack of Black Doctors is Killing Black Babies” (Fortune), and “Black Babies More Likely to Survive when Cared for by Black Doctors” (The Guardian).

Despite these breathless headlines, the study was so methodologically flawed that, according to several of the doctors I spoke with, it’s impossible to extrapolate any conclusions about how the race of the treating doctor impacts patient outcomes at all. And yet very few people were willing to publicly criticize it. As Vinay Prasad, a clinician and a professor at the University of California San Francisco, put it on Twitter: “I am aware of dozens of people who agree with my assessment of this paper and are scared to comment.”

“It’s some of the most shoddy, methodologically flawed research we’ve ever seen published in these journals,” the doctor in the Zoom meeting said, “with sensational conclusions that seem totally unjustified from the results of the study.”

“It’s frustrating because we all know how hard it is to get good, sound research published,” he added. “So do those rules and quality standards no longer apply to this topic, or to these authors, or for a certain time period?”

At the same time that the bar appears to be lower for articles and studies that push an anti-racist agenda, the consequences for questioning or criticizing that agenda can be high.

Just ask Norman Wang. Last year, the University of Pittsburgh cardiologist was demoted by his department after he published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) analyzing and criticizing diversity initiatives in cardiology. Looking at 50 years of data, Wang argued that affirmative action and other diversity initiatives have failed to both meaningfully increase the percentage of black and Hispanic clinicians in his field or to improve patient outcomes. Rather than admitting, hiring and promoting clinicians based on their race, he argued for race-neutral policies in medicine.

“Long-term academic solutions and excellence should not be sacrificed for short-term demographic optics,” Wang wrote. “Ultimately, all who aspire to a profession in medicine and cardiology must be assessed as individuals on the basis of their personal merits, not their racial and ethnic identities.”

At first, there was little response. But four months after it was published, screenshots of the paper began circulating on Twitter and others in the field began accusing Wang of racism. Sharonne Hayes, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, implored colleagues to “rise up.” “The fact that this is published in ‘our’ journal should both enrage & activate all of us,” she wrote, adding the hashtag #RetractRacists.

Soon after, Barry London, the editor in chief of JAHA, issued an apology and the journal retracted the work over Wang’s objection. London cited no specific errors in Wang’s paper in his statement, just that publishing it was antithetical to his and the journal’s values. Retraction, in a case like this, is exceedingly rare: When papers are retracted, it’s generally because of the data or the study has been discredited. A search of the journal’s website and the Retraction Database found records of just two retractions in JAHA: Wang’s paper and a 2019 paper that erroneously linked heart attacks to vaping.

After the outcry, the American Heart Association (AHA), which publishes the journal, issued a statement denouncing Wang’s paper and promising an investigation. In a tweet, the organization said it “does NOT represent AHA values. JAHA is editorially independent but that’s no excuse. We’ll investigate. We’ll do better. We’re invested in helping to build a diverse health care and research community.”

As the criticism mounted, Wang was removed from his position as the director of a fellowship program in clinical cardiac electrophysiology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and was prohibited from making any contact with students. His boss reportedly told him that his classroom was “inherently unsafe” due to the views he expressed.

Wang is now suing both the AHA and the University of Pittsburgh for defamation and violating his First Amendment rights. To the doctors on the Zoom call, his case was a stark warning of what can happen when one questions policies like affirmative action, which, according to recent polling, is opposed by nearly two-thirds of Americans, including majorities of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

“I’m into efforts to make medicine more diverse,” a doctor from the Zoom group said. “But what’s gone off the rails here is that there is an intolerance of people that have another point of view. And that's going to hurt us all.”

JAHA isn’t the only journal issuing apologies. In February, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) released a podcast hosted by surgeon and then-deputy journal editor Edward Livingston, who questioned the value of the hyper focus on race in medicine as well as the idea that medicine is systemically racist.

“Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help,” Livingston said at one point. “Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

It’s possible Livingston’s comments would have gone unnoticed but JAMA promoted the podcast on Twitter with the tone-deaf text: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Even more than in the case of Norman Wang, this tweet, and the podcast it promoted, led to a massive uproar. A number of researchers vowed to boycott the journal, and a petition condemning JAMA has received over 9,000 signatures. In response to the backlash, JAMA quickly deleted the episode, promised to investigate, and asked Livingston to resign from his job. He did.

If you try to access the podcast today, you find an apology in its place from JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, who called Livingston’s statements, “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.” Bauchner was also suspended by JAMA pending an independent investigation. This Tuesday, JAMA announced that Bauchner officially stepped down. In a statement, he said he is “profoundly disappointed in myself for the lapses that led to the publishing of the tweet and podcast. Although I did not write or even see the tweet, or create the podcast, as editor in chief, I am ultimately responsible for them.”

Shortly after this announcement, the New York Times reported that “JAMA’s reckoning” led to a backlash from some JAMA members, who wrote in a letter to the organization that “there is a general feeling that the firing of the editors involved in the podcast was perhaps precipitous, possibly a blot on free speech and also possibly an example of reverse discrimination.” Bauchner’s last day at JAMA is June 30...

Keep reading.

 

"Lululemon, a Karen-Facing Company That Sells $3 Worth of Spandex as Yoga-Wear for $98, Retweets Leftwing Agitation All Day Long, Including an Exhortation to 'RESIST CAPITALISM...'"

At the irrepressible AoSHQ.

Populism Rises Because the Left Has Become Unbearable

This is really great.

It's Piers Morgan, who I've liked but stopped paying attention to after he went on his gun-control jihad while still at CNN.

In any case, he's seen the light. I doubt that's changed his opinion on guns, but he's quite lucid on the problem facing all of us today, all of us in the Western industrial democracies where leftist PC-culture is destroying liberalism.

At RCP, "Piers Morgan: Populism Is Rising Because Liberals Have Become Unbearable":

The liberals get what they want, which is a humorless void where nothing happens, no one dares do anything or laugh about anything or behave in any way that doesn't suit their rigid way of leading a life. No thanks. So what's happening around the world? Populism is rising because people are fed up with the PC culture. They're fed up with snowflakery, they're fed up with people being offended by everything and they're gravitating towards forceful personalities who go: "This is all nonsense!"

Which, by the way, it is in most cases. So why are we surprised? I'm not surprised. It doesn't mean to say I agree with all of it, but it means I can understand it, and I understand why the liberals, my side, if you like, are getting it so horribly wrong. They just wanna tell people, not just how to lead their lives, but if you don't lead it the way I tell you to it's a kind of version of fascism. If you don't lead the life the way I'm telling you to then I'm going to ruin your life. I'm gonna scream abuse at you. I'm gonna get you fired from your job. I'm gonna get you hounded by your family and friends. I'm gonna make you the most disgusting human being in the world.

Trump Supporters Must Be 'Confronted and Destroyed'

The full video's at Newsbusters. The one-side presentation of today's political violence is a joke. What about the Antifa attack on the ICE facility?

Nada. Nothing. It's like it never happened.

See, "MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: Trump Supporters Must Be ‘Confronted and Destroyed’."

Coleman Hughes Testimony Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (VIDEO)

Gawd, this is fantastic!

Leftists were outraged. I mean, just look at the faces of the black Democrats behind Mr. Hughes. They don't want to get off the leftist-Democrat Party plantation!

Watch:



And at Twitchy, "Blue-check comedian OK’s racial slur against black columnist who testified against reparations."

And from the now-deleted tweet, by Rae Sanni:

It’s okay, just for today, to call Coleman Hughes a coon. He’s arguing against reparations on Juneteenth. He’s Cooneman Hughes til midnight Pacific Standard time

— Rae Sanni (@raesanni) June 19, 2019

Rebecca's Traister's Fury

She's got a new book out called Good and Mad, and she's sure personifying it.

Not a nice woman. On Twitter:

Once again, I was mad on television. I am also available for weddings and bat mitzvahs. I’m really the life of the party, I think you’ll find https://t.co/2hD24kcH10

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 16, 2019

Many people do WANT to get an abortion, for personal, emotional, health & economic reasons. Many are prevented from doing so. Abortion is not always tragic or hard & for some is a relief, salvation of body, family. Also: none of this matters. It should simply be free & on demand. https://t.co/0zkzXhblzM

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 16, 2019

I wrote about abortion and rage. https://t.co/Al4VQ0Rz8o

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 17, 2019

“Some say Democrats are angry...well I don’t believe it.” This man is gonna be the end of me. I’m curious how he thinks any reform of the founding inequalities he so dutifully mentions in the first excerpt was achieved...rainbows, smiles, & affable affection for the oppressors? https://t.co/PyPbOBep9r

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 18, 2019

Who IS this guy, suggesting that anger many feel at injustice & inequity & the suffering they cause is same as Trump’s punitive fury on behalf of himself & white patriarchal power? Anger at injustice has catalyzed transformative change; “unity” has not. Joe is deeply wrong.

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 18, 2019

I wrote a book about this. It’s good, easy reading & it doesn’t bite; I wish Biden would read it. Along with @ProfessorCrunk & @schemaly & all the historians who have told the story of how angry people have spent their lives working to remake this nation. https://t.co/eYpS2YQ592

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 18, 2019

One more: he’s a politician. A purported expert IN POLITICS. Who does he think elected a Democratic house, historic numbers of first time candidates—many of them openly raging—LAST YEAR in the biggest wave since 1974? People in search of cheery unity with the Republican Party?

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 18, 2019

Okay that’s it. I’m going to take my clenched fist, hard heart and spewing hate and use them to bake 48 chocolate cupcakes for my father in law’s 90th birthday.

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) May 18, 2019

Noah Rothman, Unjust

*BUMPED.*

At Amazon, Noah Rothman, Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America.

Paul Joseph Watson Also Banned in Facebook Purge (VIDEO)

Following-up from yesterday, "Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos."

Big tech controls the new public square, and conservatives have to be ready to fight back, and yes, that includes President Trump leading the call to regulate leftist social media giants.

Watch:

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos

It's no surprise, although it raises the long-standing questions of whether the social media giants should be the speech police of American society. Obviously, the answer is no, but leftists control the industry.

What's the solution? More conservative media outlets, especially new outlets focused on building massive scale of participation and membership to rival the power of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

At the Washington Post, "Facebook bans far-right leaders including Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos for being “dangerous”":

The bans are a sign that Facebook is more aggressively enforcing its hate speech policies under pressure from civil rights groups https://t.co/xRY2Ggjyha

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 2, 2019

Facebook said on Thursday it has permanently banned several far-right figures and organizations including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Infowars host Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer, for being “dangerous,” a sign that the social network is more aggressively enforcing its hate speech policies under pressure from civil rights groups.

Facebook had removed the accounts, fan pages, and groups affiliated with these individuals after it reevaluated the content that they had posted previously, or had reexamined their activities outside of Facebook, the company said. The removal also pertains to at least one of the organizations run by these people, Jones’ Infowars.

“We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today,” Facebook said in a statement.

Jones, for example, recently hosted Gavin McInnes, the leader of the Proud Boys, which Facebook designated as a hate figure in December. Yiannopoulos, another alt-right social media star, publicly praised McInnes this year, and Loomer appeared with him at a rally. Jones has been temporarily banned before by Facebook as well as other social media platforms including Twitter.

But Facebook and its counterparts have largely resisted permanent bans, holding that objectionable speech is permissible, so long as it doesn’t bleed into hate. Facebook has also been wary of offending conservatives, who have become vocal about allegations that the company unfairly censors their speech.

The move is likely to be welcomed by civil rights activists, who have long argued that these individuals espouse violent and hateful views and that Silicon Valley companies should not allow their platforms to become a vehicle for spreading them...

More.

For one thing, Farrakhan isn't "far-right," and frankly, "far-right" is a slur to demonize conservatives anyway, especially highly effective ones.

That said, I brook no tolerance for any racism, so if some of these folks are dallying with genuine Nazis, that's a no go for me.

And finally, McInnes and Yiannopoulos are examples of canaries in the coalmine, and if they're going down, the big social media sites, with their diabolical "civil rights" safety commissars, will go after the next group of successful conservative activists.

DC McAllister Update

I don't even know this woman, and don't care about her one way or the other.

Mostly, it's just a thing on Twitter. She got fired. Okay. Life goes on.

Previously, "DC McAllister Fired."

And Bethany Mandel has been tweeting about this all day. Read the full thread:

Denise McAllister's public meltdown was indefensible and homophobic https://t.co/BtfvcsMrqx

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) April 1, 2019

A few thoughts on Denise and what happened this weekend: First of all, I am conservative and I was one of the many people who took issue with her original tweet (which did not applaud masculinity, but instead an incredibly subservience nobody should expect of a woman).

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) April 1, 2019

Her behavior in public and on the listserv for Federalist writers made it clear she was not mentally stable. She expressed some really not okay viewpoints that I was increasingly uncomfortable associating myself with. Her attack on my husband was a final straw.

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) April 1, 2019

Someone that unbalanced, that hateful, should not have a platform. To be clear, this is something everyone familiar with her work and her tweets have known for A LONG TIME. She attempted to doxx @beyondreasdoubt & her attacks on @BridgetPhetasy were the cruelest I have ever seen.

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) April 1, 2019

Just want to clarify myself a tiny bit: She should not have a platform among mainstream conservative websites. She can and should keep tweeting if that's what she wants. But nobody is entitled to publish whatever they want wherever they want. That's up to those sites and editors.

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) April 1, 2019

DC McAllister Fired

From the Federalist, a website I rarely, if ever, read.

She was a little too unflitered, it turns out, especially when going after Meghan McCain, whose husband, Ben Domenech, a known plagiarist, is a co-founder.

At the Washington Examiner:

The Federalist has parted ways with conservative writer @McAllisterDen after a bevy of complaints surrounding her attacks on Twitter of @yashar over his sexuality.https://t.co/Ni1hB0H2Kw

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) March 31, 2019

Just followed @McAllisterDen because anybody denounced as a "hater" by Meghan McCain must be good people.

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) March 31, 2019

Democrat Voters Conflicted on Who Can Beat President Trump

The California primary is one year from today, and the L.A. Times kicked off a year of campaign coverage with a special section today.

And from Janet Hook's piece, "Democrats, facing a big candidate field, ask: Who can beat Trump?":

Like the headline says: One year and counting. Check out a great package of stories about the Democratic race by @markzbarabak @hookjan @melmason @finneganLAT pic.twitter.com/aC980KV8Fa

— David Lauter (@DavidLauter) March 3, 2019

Biden and Beto, if they get into the 2020 race, embody totally different concepts of electability, of what it will take to beat Donald Trump https://t.co/Y8YWUzG7fO

— Janet Hook (@hookjan) March 1, 2019

Marcus Scott is looking for a Democratic presidential candidate who will be rude to Donald Trump. Kara LaMarche wants an upbeat, positive approach. Ben Dion wants a nominee with experience and gravitas. Linds Jakows has had it with older white men in power.

Those voters, like fellow Democrats across the country, seek very different things in the big and growing presidential candidate field. But they share one top priority: Picking a nominee who will beat President Trump in 2020.

A year from now, on March 3, 2020, candidates will be competing for primary votes in California and eight other states in the first day of multistate voting. By then, the candidates will have been tested in the four early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, where Democrats already have a curbside seat for the parade of candidates campaigning there.

Between now and then, much of the debate seems certain to focus on the elusive quality labeled “electability.”

Parties always want to win, of course, but Democratic loathing of Trump has pushed finding a winner way up the priority scale this year, recent polls show. Democratic voters say they’d prefer a candidate who can beat Trump to one who agrees with their position on any particular issue.

Voters, however, have widely varying views about what electable means in 2020. To some, it is code for a safe, cautious choice — a centrist white male who presumably can speak to swing voters. To other Democrats, that’s a recipe for killing off excitement within the party’s young, diverse, progressive base, which needs to be mobilized to win in 2020.

The contrasting ideas about electability will come sharply into focus in the coming weeks if two late entrants to the 2020 race come off the sidelines. If former Rep. Beto O’Rourke jumps in, the 46-year-old Texan will represent a bid for generational change that could mobilize new voters in a way supporters compare to Barack Obama.

If Vice President Joe Biden runs, he will likely lean heavily on the case that his long experience makes the 76-year-old the party’s safest bet to win the White House.

“I believe he is the only person who could take on Trump and beat him,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator and longtime Biden backer. “We’re going to need someone who can motivate the middle-of-the-road voter.”

Other Democrats believe the party must put up a candidate better equipped than the former vice president to speak to and harness the energy of the younger generation of voters that helped deliver victory to the party in the 2018 midterm elections.

“I truly believe this great nation is ready for change,” said Robyn Joppy, a business consultant who heard Biden speak at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event in Washington, D.C. “I love him. But I think his time has come and gone.”

How many candidates will be in the field by the time actual voting starts is anybody’s guess. For now, 13 have joined the field or formed an exploratory committee. Half are senators — Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

More candidates may soon get in the race, including former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, as well as Biden and O’Rourke.

The candidates are now pouring most of their effort into the four earliest-voting states. They face a daunting challenge when attention turns to California, because its large size gives a leg up to candidates who can afford television advertising.

Harris, Sanders and Biden, if he runs, could have an edge because they are already well known in the state. But because Democratic Party rules require all states to distribute their delegates proportionately, no candidate is likely to walk away with a lion’s share of California’s more than 400 convention delegates, the largest group from any state.

Most Democrats are highly confident of their ability to beat Trump in 2020, because of his low approval ratings and the high level of energy in their own ranks.

But a recent poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican firm, provides a warning against overconfidence on the part of Democrats. Nationally the poll found just 45% of respondents approved of the job Trump was doing. But he fared better — 50% approved of him — in 12 swing states important to his reelection (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin).

Some Democrats are skeptical about assessing candidates’ electability.

Kirsten Powers Apologizes

Boy, she's really gone off the deep end.

At USA Today, "I'm not proud of role I’ve played in toxic public debate. I plan to change."

I'm not proud of role I’ve played in toxic public debate. I plan to change, says columnist @KirstenPowers. https://t.co/USJCKr9xql

— USA TODAY Opinion (@usatodayopinion) February 19, 2019

We need to have humility and realize that there but for the grace of God go I. It’s easy to delude yourself that you would never do whatever today’s designated bad person is accused of doing. But don’t be so sure. Given the wrong circumstances, people would be surprised at what they are capable of doing.

We also need to recognize what we are doing: It’s called scapegoating.

In the Bible, a scapegoat was an animal burdened with the sins of others through a ritual, then driven away. This is in effect what our society does when we designate certain people to bear our collective sins. Once it's discovered that a person behaved in a racist, homophobic or misogynist way — often in the distant past — she is banished from society, creating a sense that something has been accomplished. That somehow there has been atoning because someone was punished.

This creates two problems: First, the systemic problem still exists. Second, one person is not responsible for the sins of everyone. People should not be treated as disposable and banished in perpetuity with no path to restoration with society. Would you want that to happen to you?

It’s critical to remember that people simply are not the sum of their worst moments in life. Go back through your life and write down every terrible thing you have done or said, and now imagine a video of it is on the internet. Would you want that to be the record of your life? Don’t underestimate the power of denial. I frequently hear people who I knew to be homophobic 20 years ago express indignance over anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage today with no sense of self-awareness...

She attacked Nicholas Sandmann, and when the fact exonerated him, she hedged and doubled down. I predicted she'd regret it, and I was right.

Still more at the link.

CNN Hires Smokin' Hottie Sarah Isgur

She's a hot chick. I can see why progressives went nuts: they're jealous.

The women's also a flaming hot MAGA conservative and former spokeswoman for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Who cares if she's got no formal "journalistic experience"? I mean, c'mon, no one's ever heard of George Stephanopoulos? *Eye roll.*

At the Daily Beast, with a nice photo of this luscious babe:

CNN staffers are upset and confused about the network’s decision to hire GOP operative Sarah Isgur to oversee its 2020 campaign reporting: “It’s extremely demoralizing for everyone here" https://t.co/4fQSKc6IF2

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) February 19, 2019

Nicholas Sandmann's Family Sues Washington Post for $250 Million (VIDEO)

Robert Stacy McCain reports, "Can Nick Sandmann Win? Covington Student Sues the Washington Post."

Plus, here's Lin Wood on Twitter, and the total exoneration video posted below:

In this country, our society is dedicated to protecting children regardless of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or the caps they wear. Washington Post did not care about protecting Nick Sandmann. The Post just cared about being the first & loudest media bully.

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) February 19, 2019

Washington Post recklessly ignored basic journalist standards because it was eager to advance its biased agenda against @realDonaldTrump by impugning individuals perceived to be his supporters. Nick Sandmann was perceived as an easy target. He is 16. Inexcusable on every level.

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) February 19, 2019

Nick Sandmann is 16-years of age, 5’9” in height and weighs 115 pounds. The school field trip to the Nation’s capital was the first out-of-state trip Nick had ever taken without being with his family. He did nothing to deserve being attacked, vilified & bullied. Nothing.

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) February 20, 2019

Twitter Blackout: #48Dark

I saw Michelle Malkin tweeting about this earlier. I'm trying to observe the blackout. I'm getting my news on Twitter, but haven't tweeted anything today.

Loomer's a real corker.

Laura Loomer Organizing Mass Protest at Twitter HQ, Social Media Blackout https://t.co/qeJ4U4fOM6

— Big League Politics (@bigleaguepol) February 18, 2019

Candace Owens Clarifies Comments on Adolf Hitler

If you don't know much about Adolf Hitler and the fundamental program of the Nazi regime, it's probably not a good idea to reference them. Like at all. And this is interesting to me, really interesting, since I'm the adviser to my campus's chapter of Turning Point USA, which is planning on having Ms. Owens on campus for a talk sometime this spring semester.

In any case, at USA Today, "After backlash, conservative pundit Candace Owens clarifies viral Hitler comment."

Thank you @USATODAY for publishing the FULL quote & context of what I said.

We are all holding to see if @ChelseaClinton will apologize for perpetuating this leftist media hoax.

Similar to #Covington, this hoax has resulted in death threats against me.https://t.co/3VEAkX23nx

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) February 9, 2019

Russell Blackford, The Tyranny of Opinion

This is supposed to be great.

At Amazon, Russell Blackford, The Tyranny of Opinion: Conformity and the Future of Liberalism.