Or just March Madness? I don't think it will be over on April 1, do you?
Arguably worse: fumble-mouthed attempts to wave away behavior that would get lesser officials fired or locked up. Charles C.W. Cooke explains Sometimes, It’s Best Just to Say, ‘We Screwed Up’.
Fair warning: I’m about to be naive again. Here goes: Why don’t politicians — in both parties, and across all of our institutions — just come out and say “I screwed up” when it’s perfectly obvious that they screwed up? If the last couple of decades are any indication, our eminent leaders seem to be under the impression that admitting error is about the worst thing that you can do. In most cases, though, it’s really not. In the real world, acknowledging that you tried something and that it didn’t work — or, simply, that you made a flat-out mistake — is quite relatable. And, even when it’s not relatable, it’s preferable to telling stupid lies that — and here’s the key point — that everyone knows are stupid lies.
Right now, the Trump administration and its apologists are applying the most hilarious spin to the news that the editor of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was added to a Signal group chat in which the Secretary of Defense, the national security advisor, the vice president and others were discussing their plan to hit the Houthis. Indeed, as recently as today, the Atlantic‘s report — the veracity of which has been acknowledged by the White House — has been described as a “hoax.” Who, I must ask, is this line for?
Elsewhere on the National Review site, the collective Editors have a suggestion for the Trump Administration: On Signal Leak, Take the L.
As a matter of crisis communications, it would have been better if Trump officials had simply admitted that they had made a grievous error and promised to tighten up their communications methods and procedures to ensure that all highly sensitive conversations were conducted in the appropriate venue. The strikes on the Houthi terrorists were, after all, successful, and no American lives were lost in the operation.
But the Trump habit of always hitting back at perceived enemies and never admitting mistakes under any circumstances set administration officials up for what was easily predictable: Goldberg’s subsequent revelations proved that administration officials’ answers to the controversy were self-serving, Clintonian, and dishonest.
"Clintonian" should be perceived as an insult, but Trump might see it as a plus: "Hey, both Clintons got away with being pathological liars, so …"
But if you prefer your news analysis with jokes and dirty words, Jeff Maurer is all over it. Three, count 'em, three articles on this:
- March 25: The Trump Administration Also Texted Me Its War Plans
- March 26: Signal Scandal Defenses Might Cross an Intergalactic Stupidity Threshold
- March 27: Oh: They Sent Jeffrey Goldberg ATTACK PLANS, not WAR PLANS
From the latest:
It’s been an incredible few days since we learned that Trump administration officials added The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg to what should have been a highly-secure group chat. The White House and its allies have employed a series of ridiculous arguments in their defense, including that the whole thing is a hoax and that it’s actually a 4-D chess masterstroke that will make Talleyrand’s ghost weep when Trump executes the final move. And yesterday, National “Security” Adviser Michael Waltz floated the possibility that Goldberg might be a psychic cyberterrorist with possible shapeshifting capabilities:
[Video at link]
Yeah: DID GOLDBERG TYPE HIS NUMBER INTO WALTZ’ PHONE DELIBERATELY??? He might have — he could have anticipated the existence of this group chat months, years, or possibly decades in advance, and also known the name of someone who would be invited to the chat. He might have then accessed Waltz’ phone, possibly by posing as a Verizon employee or by lowering himself from the ceiling like in Mission Impossible. Try to recall, Mr. Waltz: Have you ever given your wife your phone — possibly so she could “find that photo from yesterday” or something — but not looked closely to be sure that it was actually her? How do we know that your “wife” wasn’t actually Jeff Goldberg in a wig? FACT: We don’t know. And that’s just the type of stunt that this “loser” journalist would pull.
I got no brief for Jeffrey Goldberg; see Kevin D. Williamson's 2018 article in the WSJ for adequate proof that Goldberg is a lying, cowardly weasel: When the Twitter Mob Came for Me.
On the other hand, the Trump Administration is resorting to insult, semantic quibbling, and general obfuscation in its defense. Weak. Just apologize, take your lumps, fire Hesgeth and Waltz, and move on.
Also of note:
-
If I learned anything from CSI, it's that my DNA is hardly a secret. A couple weeks ago I started my report on Douglas Murray's book The War on the West by reflecting on his "fine job of demonstrating just how nuts we went just a few years ago," In the opening of her Free Press article (What 23andMe Told America About Itself), Kat Rosenfield adds a few more data points to that thesis:
To understand this week’s biggest business story, please join me in remembering the solipsistic, race-crazed fever dream that was American culture in 2017.
This was the year when young adult fiction writers ate each other alive over a fantasy novel that was allegedly racist toward fairies. In Portland, Oregon, a food truck was shuttered and its owners threatened with violence because they had supposedly culturally appropriated indigenous burrito recipes. In New York, fashion designer Marc Jacobs had just been similarly canceled for putting white models in dreadlocks. The art world was earnestly debating whether the Whitney Museum of American Art should remove a white artist’s painting of Emmett Till from view—or, alternatively, whether they should remove it and then set it on fire.
All these incidents (and these are only a handful) represented the rise of a far-left ideology that was utterly fixated on racial and ethnic identities, which were in turn seen as proxies for power, privilege, and general moral standing. The more intersectional you could claim to be, the more sympathy you deserved. The more privileged, the more you should sit down, shut up, and stop taking up space—particularly when people who looked like you had already taken so much.
See what I mean? Nuts.
Kat's article goes on to discuss 23andMe's demise, and it's good and insightful, as we've come to expect.
-
But for another take: Let's go to Ronald Bailey, Reason's science guy, who explains Why [he is] not deleting [his] 23andMe genetic data.
Various corners of the media and internet are hyperventilating over the alleged genetic privacy implications of the imminent Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23andMe.
"Delete your DNA from 23andMe right now," yelps a headline over at The Washington Post. Why? "Unless you take action, there is a risk your genetic information could end up in someone else's hands—and used in ways you had never considered," ominously warns Post journalist Geoffrey Fowler. NPR reports that Suzanne Bernstein, counsel at the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, advises that any concerned 23andMe customers should delete their data, request that their saliva sample be destroyed, and revoke any permissions they may have given to use their genetic information for research. "This is just the first example of a company like this with tremendous amounts of sensitive data being bought or sold," she added. California Attorney General Rob Bonta urgently issued a consumer alert reminding "Californians of their right to direct the deletion of their genetic data under the Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) and California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)."
Given that I just got my RealID-compliant driver license a few days ago, I realize that my mug is in a Federal government database. As is my Social Security Number. And my birthday. And copies of my birth certificate. And…
And I should be worried about someone looking at my DNA? Please. "Gee, lots of G's, A's, T's, and C's, here."
-
Just ten? Elle Purnell stopped at that number anyhow, after watching C-Span yesterday: 10 Times NPR Proved It Doesn't Deserve Another Taxpayer Cent.
In a congressional subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, National Public Radio CEO Katherine Maher admitted the outfit’s blackout of the Hunter Biden laptop story was a mistake, acknowledged that NPR’s alleged 87-to-zero ratio of Democrats to Republicans in editorial positions is a “concern,” and stumbled through a defense of her publicly expressed views like “America is addicted to white supremacy” and calling the First Amendment “the number one challenge” to suppressing information.
As Republican members of Congress pointed out, one of NPR’s most infamous displays of corruption was its refusal to cover the Biden family scandal sourced to Hunter Biden’s laptop in the lead-up to the 2020 election.
“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel said in a statement explaining the blackout.
Given that I've referred to NPR as "Commie Radio" 38 times on this blog over the years (limited selection here), I was heartened by this CNN headline: Marjorie Taylor Greene attacks NPR and PBS as ‘communist,’ calls for funding to ‘end’. Key excerpt:
“After listening to what we’ve heard, today, we will be calling for the complete and total defund and dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Taylor Greene said.
Yes! Call in the assistance of Jewish space lasers if necessary!
![[The Blogger and His Dog]](/ps/images/me_with_barney.jpg)
