Fidgeting with my phone, shifting ever so slightly on the couch while attempting to give off at least some air of authority.More
Fidgeting with my phone, shifting ever so slightly on the couch while attempting to give off at least some air of authority.More
In my recent contribution at PJ Media, I lamented the fact that “over the last few years the belief has arisen that a fleeing or resisting suspect – even an armed one – has the absolute right to be subdued without being harmed.” It’s bad enough when this opinion is held by an uninformed public or members of the media, but police officers are dumbfounded when they find such ignorance expressed by people occupying positions that should, at least in theory, demand a greater mastery of the issues.
I have written previously on the low opinion I hold for the Los Angeles police commission, the five-member body that oversees the LAPD. The members are appointed by the mayor to five-year terms, and though the commission is charged with setting policy for the department and evaluating officers’ conduct in serious use-of-force incidents, there is no expectation that any commissioner have even minimal experience or training that might inform his decisions. In reality, the commissioners are selected so as to conform with some unwritten “diversity” checklist, with the result that there is always at least one black member, one Hispanic, one female, one gay, and what have you. The politics of Los Angeles being what they are, the current members are all left-leaning, some of them more so than others.More
Just received the following email from a friend–and it gave me a thought. Several fine posts below discuss various opinions about the debate, and we are, Lord knows, a group with opinions. But I myself find there’s something fascinating, and at least loosely useful, about actual reporting on the debates–about observation and anecdotes as opposed to opinions.
As I say, this item, just in from a friend. Does anyone else here in the House of Ricochet have a debate scene to describe or anecdote to share?More
After last night’s debate, CNN, Time, CNBC, and the Drudge Report conducted online polls on their websites of those who had watched the debate. According to CNN, 62% of the voters who tuned in thought that Hillary had won. Time reports that 55% thought that Trump had won. CNBC informs us that 67% thought that Trump had won. And the Drudge Report found that 82.34% thought that Trump had won.
It’s the day after the night of the Big Thing and the men from GLoP cover it in their own inimitable way. Who won? Who lost? Who had nasal malfunctions? It’s all here. Also, some parsing of NYT columnist Ross Douthat’s recent Clinton’s Samantha Bee Problem column, and a meditation on the top TV shows of all time. Did we miss any? Let us know in the comments.
Dial it up, @ejhill.More
James and Toby discuss the Hillary/Trump debate and are mildly surprised to find themselves in agreement with one another. At least briefly. Trump, says his closet admirer James, was like a punch-drink boxer, while Hillary was sharp, well-briefed, apparently likeable. Toby agrees – then delights James with some criticisms of Hillary. But then the buts begin…”Who would you rather have as the entertainer as your children’s party?” Toby asks. Naturally, the two London Calling boys reach very different conclusions.More
Big news: The COMMENTARY podcast is going twice-weekly. In this, our second of the week, we delve into the question of who’s really leading in the presidential race (it’s a she) before sinking our teeth into the entire question of the value of debates, what happens in them, how the candidates try to play the refs, and whether everything that is going to happen is already baked in the cake. Give a listen.
[Programming note, this episode was recorded four days ago but due to a routine FBI investigation into our emails we were unable to release it until today. The COMMENTARY boys also recorded a new podcast today, which will come out shortly.]More
Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club podcast for September 27, 2016! It’s the Trump Rocked It, But the Media Won’t Say It! edition, brought to you by SimpliSafe!
The morning after the Thrilla in Hampstead, nanophysicist Mike Stopa and radio talk host Todd Feinburg tell you who won the debate and how. Then we’ll share our prerecorded predictions (just to make ourselves look dumber than usual), followed by our shower thoughts and our Hidden Gem from the band XTC.More
This is Sparta? Who cares? Why should we pay any attention to an ancient Greek city not called Athens? Paul A. Rahe explains in his new book, The Spartan Regime: Its Character, Origins, and Grand Strategy.
In a 10-minute conversation with The Bookmonger, Rahe describes what makes the Spartans distinctive, why he studies them as a scholar, and what their story can teach us about statesmanship in the 21st century.More
Not since Godzilla fought King Kong have people so anticipated the confrontation between a radioactive lizard and a brutish ape. The first presidential debate was billed to me by various news sources as the culmination of the campaign a TV event that could rival and surpass the Super Bowl. Naturally I was curious to see it, and like some people who watch NASCAR I was secretly hoping to see something (or in this case someone) crash and burn. I think my first and overall impression of the debate was that while at times spicy it really seemed very conventional overall. So if you didn’t see it, but have kept up with the news of the campaign you aren’t going to see anything new by watching it. Save yourself the 1.5 hours. That said I will go into a more detailed set of impressions about this debate.
First off, I would just like to put my cards on the table here. I am one of those scurrilous people who for a lack of a better term is a NeverTrumper. I don’t like the guy or his policies. I also don’t like Hillary Clinton and I have no plan to vote for her. In fact right now I am likely to vote for no one for president (or maybe Evan McMullin if he is on the ballot in IL, but then again I repeat myself). A recent post by @claire asked us what if anything Trump or Hillary could say at this debate that would change my mind to vote for them. Well whatever that thing was none of them said it. As is my wont I will break this down by the two candidates and give you my impressions of each and how they did.More
This is a preview from Tuesday morning’s The Daily Shot newsletter. Subscribe here free of charge.
In case you live under a rock or something, on Monday night Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton met for the first of three presidential debates. Beforehand, those in the know estimated 100 million people would watch. If you were not one of them, you are to be congratulated. To call it awful would be an exercise in hyperbolic understatement. It was utterly soul sucking. If for some reason (like, you hate yourself) you want to read a transcript, it can be found here.More
Donald Trump was a dominating force in the first of the presidential debates. First, Lester Holt: He mostly stayed out of the way, letting the candidates speak and interact with each other. Holt deserves much credit for his deft handling of an undoubtedly difficult task. However, Trump also refused to allow Holt to interrupt on the occasions that Holt tried to redirect the conversation, first on stop-and-frisk and then on Trump’s position on the Iraq war. Trump would not allow Holt to take over. In short, Trump did what Mitt Romney couldn’t and John McCain wouldn’t: He refused to allow the moderator and the other candidate to direct the conversation. He refused to buy into the premise of the questions.
Hillary Clinton wore a fake, sickly smile throughout the debate, glancing condescendingly in Trump’s direction and rolling her eyes. “Well, just listen to what he said,” she said at one point. It was as if she thought his mere presence was a joke. Trump, on the other hand, treated Clinton as an equal, aggressively challenging her on repeated points — while being polite. No one has ever challenged her the way Trump did in any of the scores of debates I have watched her in since 2007. When Clinton said 50 national security officials had endorsed her, Trump responded that hundreds of generals have endorsed him and that “I’ll take the generals over the political hacks.” The clear meaning was that Clinton is a political hack. Trump made it more clear at several other points during the debate when he said that she was “all words” and no action, that politicians had ruined our foreign policy, and destroyed the inner cities.More
This strikes me, alas, as only too reasonable. If you can refute it, please do–please.
Hillary Clinton is not a particularly appealing politician. But she is a solid and experienced debater who knows the workings of American government inside and out. A careful, meticulous, unexciting performance of the kind that she has delivered in many debates before should suffice to make her look wiser, safer and more serious than the tabloid character across the stage from her.
Earlier this month, the US Commission on Civil Rights issued its report Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties. The report, which was occasioned in part by the same-sex marriage debate, tries to determine the correct relationship between antidiscrimination laws and the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. Currently, persons of religious faith have been legally charged with discrimination under state antidiscrimination laws for refusing to provide their individualized services to same-sex couples because they sincerely believe that marriage is a relationship existing only between one man and one woman. The question is: should they be granted a religious exemption?
The report’s title, Peaceful Coexistence, conveys, perhaps unintentionally, a grim social reality in the United States. Historically, of course, it described the uneasy relationship between the US and the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. In that context, the phrase described how two nations, organized under radically different principles, could avoid the dangers of mutual annihilation through nuclear warfare.More
If you want an example of the federal government’s myriad failures, the Navajo Nation is a good place to start. Despite billions of dollars of Washington spending, and clumsy micromanagement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the HHS, more than 40 percent of the region’s residents live below the poverty line and the median household income is just $20,005.
The sprawling, semi-autonomous community covers 27,000 square miles of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, but is shared by only 170,000 people. Not only are the residents spread out over a vast distance, a large percentage live in remote locations making it difficult to establish quality local schools. As a result, the average high school graduation rate is a mere 32 percent, with only 5 percent of Navajos holding a bachelor’s degree.More
Approximately two months ago I sent a personal message to our beleaguered administrator @max that was short and to the point: “How do I cancel recurring payment for Ricochet?” The reply I received was equally short, and due to the internet’s inability to convey tone I read it as curt: “In your profile, click on Settings, then Billing.”
Fearing that Max had mistaken my PM as an indication that I wanted to quit Ricochet in a huff, I quickly assured him I simply wanted the chance to change my membership level if I so desired. I didn’t think much about that conversation until this morning when I received an email notifying me that my membership was set to expire in four days.More
In a totally uncoordinated, totally accidental, totally coincidental coincidence, major news outlets run totally coordinated attacks on Trump totally not taken word for word from Hillary Clinton’s website which said totally the same thing. Plus cultural correspondent Michael Knowles via satellite from the Writer’s Room. Barely.More
Why does anyone want this job if you can’t do the fun stuff that makes voters happy: cutting taxes and spending money? From the WSJ:
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are likely to recite their varied promises for fresh government spending at Monday’s first presidential debate. One reality they’re unlikely to note: Whoever wins in November will enjoy far less latitude to spend money or cut taxes than any president since World War II. Not since Harry Truman will a new leader enter office with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio. And for the first time in decades, the new president will face the specter of widening deficits despite a growing economy. “The next president, no doubt, is going to be very constrained,” said Rep. Charlie Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican who sits on the House appropriations committee and hasn’t endorsed anyone for president.
It’s a special pre-Presidential debate episode of HWX with Brian Ward and Paul Happe. They set the stage with some in-depth analysis of Hillary’s vital signs and Trump’s surging poll numbers. Also coverage of Hillary’s latest attempt to humanize herself, and we have exclusive audio, of Comedy Central’s upcoming Roast of Hillary Clinton.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America shake their heads at the pre-debate circus, including the Clinton campaign demanding that Lester Holt play fact checker. They also slam Ted Cruz for endorsing Trump after saying in July he would not be a “servile puppy” to someone who attacked his wife and father. And they laugh as Bernie Sanders, who ran a campaign calling for a political revolution, tells his supporters not to cast protest votes for third party candidates.More
Sometimes a Chia Pet is the proper gift for even the most serious, formal occasion. For instance, if you give a questionable gift for a serious occasion and it turns out to prove deeply flawed, you look foolish and may irreparable harm to your relationship and those you love. But a Chia Pet isn’t questionable. It isn’t a deplorable choice. It’s just obviously, intentionally wrong.
And sometimes, you don’t have a choice.More