Our Eye Candy du Jour is a tweet
from good old Iowahawk on the financial woes of the Atlantic:
I'm no Henry Luce, but I think I could operate a magazine full of B+ Oberlin term papers for less than $50 million per yearhttps://t.co/PRNdkJGBPk— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) July 13, 2021
I kind of remember giving up on the Atlantic back in 2006 when they pulled this stunt, a deceptive use of graphics. (The graphic has since been lost at their site, it seems. Trust me.)
She Turned Me Into a Newt!
Bari Weiss looks at the case of Maud Maron, victim of…
A Witch Trial at the Legal Aid Society
After a brief bio to establish Maron's liberal bona fides:
In short, Maron is exactly the kind of lawyer you’d imagine Legal Aid would put on the cover of its brochures. But today the public defender is filing suit in the Southern District of New York against the organization to which she has dedicated her career.
The suit, which you can read here, claims that Maron was “discriminated against on the basis of race” by her employer, Legal Aid Society, and her union, the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys. It claims that both defendants “published knowingly false statements in furtherance of ideological and political motives divorced from the core functions of Ms. Maron’s employment.” In other words: it says she was forced out of her job because of her political views and her race, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“None of this would have happened if I just said I loved books like White Fragility, and I’m a fan of Bill de Blasio’s proposals for changing New York City public schools, and I planned to vote for Maya Wiley for mayor. The reason they went after me is because I have a different point of view,” she said.
The folks who claim they want to "have a conversation" about race always seem to end the conversation with "shut up, and by the way you're also fired."
Or Math. Or Science. Or Basic Literacy. Or…
David Harsanyi says it's not that schools can't walk and chew gum at the same time; they're having
problems with gum-chewing:
Forget Critical Race Theory. I Don’t Trust Elites to Teach Kids Basic Civics. He looks at We The People, a Netflix
show produced by the Obamas. And it's not great:
“Our goal from beginning to end,” [series creator Chris] Nee says, “was to remind us that, first and foremost, civics is a nonpartisan conversation.” Is it? “The Second Amendment,” sings Adam Lambert in the voice of an unidentified Founder, is “the right to bear arms, which were very different back in my day.” Now, I hate to break the news to the producers, but the press also relied on “very different” technology when the Bill of Rights was ratified. As did the government. “Very different” religions dominated America in those days, as well. The Founding generation not only experienced their own technological advances, but many of them demanded these rights be codified lest someone one day say, “Hey, things change.”
One can debate whether the Second Amendment was a mistake. It takes an imaginary Founder, however, to make the case that “unalienable rights” were conditional on the vagaries of progress.
I think I'll watch Gunpowder Milkshake instead. But I can imagine a lot of lazy teachers putting on the video instead of lecturing about boring white guy Nathan Hale.
Maybe Change Their Name to the American Bookburners Association?
Jordan Davidson tells the story at the Federalist, and it's one of those laugh-to-keep-from-crying things:
NOT SATIRE: Book Industry Apologizes For Not Burning Book Saying Boys And Girls Are Different Before People Could Read It.
The American Booksellers Association apologized on Wednesday for including a book about the harms that come with allowing gender-confused children to “transition” in their July promotional box.
ABA first labeled Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” as “anti-trans” after receiving backlash on social media. In response, the association apologized for committing the “inexcusable” crime of promoting literature offering an alternative perspective.
“This is a serious, violent incident that goes against ABA’s ends policies, values, and everything we believe and support,” ABA tweeted. “We apologize to our trans members and to the trans community for this terrible incident and the pain we caused them. We also apologize to the LGBTQIA+ community at large, and to our bookselling community.”`
I gotta say, there's some serious (albeit metaphorical) violence committed against the language there.
While visiting the ABA website (full of self-congratulation) I got distracted by their link encouraging me to bounce over to IndieBound.org, so I could find my "local indie bookstore". That turned out to be a place I've driven by a lot: A Freethinkers Corner. Which promises to appeal to a person "who rejects accepted opinions. synonyms: Nonconformist, Individualist."
Fine. But a brief browse of their online stacks doesn't reveal any deviations from leftist dogma. No Abigail Shrier. No Charles Murray. No John McWhorter. No Kevin D. Williamson. (I could be missing stuff, but…)
Least Surprising News du Jour. Peter Suderman has it at Reason:
Democrats’ $3.5 Trillion Fully-Paid-for Spending Plan Probably Won’t Be Fully Paid for. Excerpt:
Consider what it means for something to be fully paid for. If I claimed that I had fully paid for my cocktail bar tab, for example, you would probably assume that I had forked over actual money equivalent to the entire tab. Cocktails in. Money out. A more or less straightforward exchange of currency for services.
But for Senate Democrats, it probably means something more like producing an estimate showing that, over the next decade or so, drinking cocktails at this particular bar could generate enough money-making ideas to offset the cost of the drinks…maybe minus food items. The cocktails pay for themselves!
That's perhaps somewhat exaggerated. But it's not entirely off base. For decades, Democrats have lampooned similar logic when applied to tax cuts, opposing the GOP-endorsed supply-side logic that tax cuts "pay for themselves" by increasing economic activity and bringing in greater revenue in the long run. Those supply-side effects are real, but they are typically much smaller than the most enthusiastic partisans have hoped; rarely do they fully offset the revenue loss. (That's not necessarily an argument against tax cuts. It is, however, an argument against assuming that budgets will balance after tax reductions without commensurate spending reductions.)
I'm pretty disgusted with the GOP, but the Democrats are just crazy dangerous to the country's economic health.
And Destroy the IRS. Veronique de Rugy has some good advice:
Want To Close the Tax Gap? Cut Taxes..
Every policy wonk will tell you that after you live in Washington long enough, you start seeing the same issues reemerge on a regular basis. Common ones are praise for the magical ability of government spending to help pay for itself during recessions and handwringing over the myth of middle-class stagnation. And when Uncle Sam's coffers are empty, everyone suddenly remembers the so-called tax gap—the difference between the tax revenues Congress expects versus those it actually collects.
So right on cue, calls to reduce the tax gap are back.
After the COVID-19 spending spree, the U.S. budget deficit is even higher than what we've become accustomed to. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden and his band of congressional super-spenders are eager to extend many emergency programs, such as paid leave and child benefits, as well as spend a few trillion more on infrastructure and "stimulus."
The myth is that the IRS can squeeze more cash out of the 1% by getting more money for its auditors, but that's garbage: the tax returns of the rich are already perused as diligently as can be. Instead, the green eyeshades will be turned on "Uber drivers, cleaning ladies, and individuals operating cash-based businesses—also known as small businesses". Nosiness and abuse will be rife.