Connect with us

Substacks

Condoleezza Rice: Juneteenth Is Our Second Independence Day. Plus. . . Oliver Wiseman

Published

on

Annie Moore Schwein was born enslaved in Corpus Christi, Texas. (Dorothea Lange via Getty Images)

On today’s Front Page from The Free Press: Carine Azzopardi on the ideology that killed her partner; an exclusive interview with Eden Golan; our Ren Faire reality; and much more. 

But first, our lead story, from former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice: 

On June 19, 1865, the last slaves in America were freed when Major General Gordon Granger arrived with his troops in Galveston Bay, Texas, and brought the news that slavery had been abolished. A century later, I was growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, which was then the most segregated city in the country. My father couldn’t vote with reliability. We couldn’t go to the movie theater, sit at the lunch counter, or go to school with white children.

I was eight years old when, on a Sunday morning in September 1963, the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed. I felt the blast a few blocks away in the church where my father was the pastor. Four little girls, two of whom I knew, were killed.

Mourners at a funeral for victims of 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, Birmingham, Alabama, late September 1963. (Photo by Burton McNeely/Getty Images)

But our community rallied and held close to one another. Despite the struggles of those years, we knew how far we had come from that fateful day in 1865.

Every year on Juneteenth, my parents and I talked about what our ancestors must have felt the moment they found out they were free and used it as an inspiration to keep seeking a better life here in America.

But even though my family has been celebrating Juneteenth since my childhood, it wasn’t until 2021 that Congress voted, almost unanimously, to make Juneteenth National Independence Day a federal holiday. Because many Americans are unfamiliar with its significance, some, perhaps understandably, wonder why it needed national recognition at all. After all, all Americans celebrate the Fourth of July—the ultimate celebration of our nation’s founding, of our independence and our liberty. 

To me, Juneteenth is a recognition of what I call America’s second founding. 

Read on for more from Condoleezza Rice on the meaning of Juneteenth. 

Last week, a former acting CIA director and a respected foreign policy thinker sounded the alarm on the “serious threat of a terrorist attack in the months ahead.” Michael Morell and Graham Allison argue there are echoes today of the run-up to 9/11. On Sunday, House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner warned that the United States has reached the “highest level of a possible terrorist threat.” In March, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines warned of a “generational” terrorism threat downstream from the war in Gaza. 

Time and again, people in a position to know warn of the seriousness of the threat. Time and again, no one seems to pay much attention. 

One person under no illusions about the grave threat posed by Islamist terrorism is the writer Carine Azzopardi. Carine’s partner Guillaume was murdered in the ISIS terrorist attack on the Bataclan concert hall in 2015 that left 90 people dead. As she explains in our pages today, Carine has dedicated herself to understanding why Guillaume was taken from her. But while Carine has reported on the Islamism that motivated her partner’s killers, she finds herself baffled that those living in the West are too afraid to say it out loud. 

Read Carine in full on the ideology too many dare not name.

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs—the magazine for Washington’s foreign policy establishment—two authors offer dueling visions of America’s role in the world, and a sense of the foreign policies on offer from Biden and Trump. In one essay, former Obama aide Ben Rhodes makes the case for Team Biden that is entirely preoccupied with the home front—and by that he means Donald Trump. “The most important thing that America can do in the world is detoxify its own democracy,” he concludes. (Foreign Affairs

In the second essay, former Trump national security adviser Robert O’Brien promises “realism with a Jacksonian flavor” in a second Trump term. To achieve “peace through strength,” O’Brien has a number of bold suggestions, including deploying the entire Marine Corps to Asia and resuming live nuclear-weapons testing. . . which all sounds a little too Dr. Strangelove. Wasn’t Trump supposed to be an isolationist? (Foreign Affairs)

China’s rich are fleeing the country at a record pace. The country saw the world’s largest outflow of high-net-worth individuals last year and is expected to see a record 15,200 leave this year, according to a new report. Their top destinations are the U.S., Canada, and Singapore. (Nikkei Asia

Could Donald Trump bail on next week’s presidential debate? The loose-lipped Democratic strategist James Carville said yesterday, “If I was a gambler—and actually, I am a gambler—I’d take even money that Trump doesn’t show up.” (Mediaite

Leading teen mental health researcher Jean M. Twenge reports on the alarmingly steep rise in ER admissions for self-harm among 10- to 14-year-old girls. Five times more girls in that age range were admitted to the ER for self-harm in 2022 than in 2009. Twenge points the finger at social media. U.S. surgeon general Dr. Vivek Murthy is now calling for a health warning for apps like Instagram and TikTok. (Generation Tech)  

New York congressman Jamaal Bowman is fighting for his political life ahead of a primary next week. Bowman’s October 7 denialism is the latest example of a long-standing hostility toward Israel that’s soured Jewish constituents on him. One amusing detail from this profile: a 2022 text message Bowman sent a Jewish leader in Westchester County in which he asked, “Do you have pics of us? So I can show the world I’m friends with Jewish people.” (Jewish Insider

Is any state more important than Pennsylvania in this election? Not according to William Galston, who explains why Biden will almost certainly lose the presidency if he loses the Keystone State. And according to the Real Clear Politics average, Trump has a three-point lead in PA. (Wall Street Journal

In the UK, the Conservative Party’s election campaign is not going well. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak—famed for cringe-inducing moments like the time he told children “I’m a total coke addict!”—tried to feed a flock of sheep. Much like British voters, the creatures fled. (The Independent)

In his new memoir Late Admissions, the economist Glenn Loury bluntly details his lows as well as his highs. Those lows include drug addiction, serial infidelity, and an arrest. To mark the book’s publication, Loury takes the characteristically brave step of inviting his own son on his podcast for a candid conversation about the book—and all his mistakes. (Glenn Loury Substack

It’s been a decade since flight MH370 crashed into the Indian Ocean. That’s the theory, anyway. Or one of them. We still don’t actually know where the plane, and its 239 passengers and crew, ended up. But British researchers have made headlines by discovering a six-second signal picked up on underwater microphones that may offer some clues. (Daily Mail)

We don’t tend to pay much attention to Eurovision, the campy, colorful, and at times ridiculous international song competition. This year was different. 

This year—surprise, surprise—the focus was on boycotting Israel. Over 1,000 Swedish musicians, including the pop star Robyn, signed a petition calling for Israel’s exclusion. In Finland, 1,300 artists signed a similar petition. Bars here in New York announced they wouldn’t screen the competition in protest. Israel was forced to revise its song after its original entry, “October Rain,” was deemed too political. 

At the center of it all was 20-year-old Eden Golan, the Israeli contestant who faced death threats, jeers during rehearsals and her performance, and hostility from fellow competitors, one of whom pretended to fall asleep while Eden spoke during press conferences. Another told reporters how they cried upon hearing that Golan had advanced to the final round. As for Golan, she spent the competition in her hotel while the head of Israel’s Shin Bet flew in to keep her safe as mobs gathered outside. 

Despite calls for boycott, 163 million people tuned in to Eurovision this year to watch Golan and the other performers. She placed fifth, and snagged the number two spot when it came to the public vote. 

For her first in-depth interview since performing in Sweden, Golan talks to Suzy Weiss about how she handled the pressure of being the most-hated performer in Eurovision history before ever singing a note.

Watch their conversation below: 

→ RIP, SIO: The Stanford Internet Observatory—a research center tasked with rooting out “misinformation” on social media—is shutting its doors. Chances are if you’ve heard of the SIO it was in a scathing piece from Michael Shellenberger or Matt Taibbi, who have accused the center of being a key node in the censorship-industrial complex.

It was also my first employer. Like a zillion other bright-eyed Stanford undergrads, I was drawn to work at a place that promised to “learn about the abuse of the internet in real time, to develop a novel curriculum on trust and safety that is a first in computer science, and to translate our research discoveries into training and policy innovations for the public good.” To me, that meant ending internet abuse like the glamorization of anorexia on social media or financial scams that steal billions every year. But mostly I worked on the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which SIO ran during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The purpose of that project was to identify so-called “fake news” spreading on social media. 

In actuality, SIO hired a load of interns to scan social media for posts deemed to be mis- and disinformation. It turns out that the posts we students flagged were often sent along to moderators at Twitter (now X), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, which took them down in order to quash dissenting viewpoints—viewpoints that sometimes ended up being right, as in the case of Covid likely being the result of a lab leak, or Hunter Biden’s hard drive being his actual hard drive—not Russian disinformation. 

Thanks to the work of independent journalists, the SIO’s work has come under a lot of scrutiny, including in Washington. A recent House Judiciary Committee report alleges that, by cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security, the SIO’s Election Integrity Partnership “provided a way for the federal government to launder its censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny.” 

The SIO has stated that “Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure. SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted.” But on June 13, Platformer reported that much of SIO’s staff was on the way out: “Its founding director, Alex Stamos, left his position in November. Renee DiResta, its research director, left last week after her contract was not renewed. One other staff member’s contract expired this month, while others have been told to look for jobs elsewhere, sources say.”

The Supreme Court will soon rule on a case, Murthy v. Missouri, that addresses whether the U.S. government should be able to collaborate with social media companies to censor commentary. The plaintiffs, in their brief, lambast SIO for its role in abetting government censorship. We’ll be watching that case closely.
Julia Steinberg

→ A second whistleblower at Texas Children’s Hospital: Texas Children’s Hospital, and its secret gender transition program, is back in the news with another whistleblower’s account. Yesterday, we reported that surgeon Eithan Haim is facing federal charges and ten years in prison for exposing this program. In City Journal, Christopher Rufo tells the story of nurse Vanessa Sivadge, who accuses her employer of committing Medicaid fraud in its covert program to medically transition minors. Sivadge describes her growing alarm at the conveyor belt that gender-distressed children—many with significant psychological problems—were put on. More than that, she concluded that the gender doctors were likely using Medicaid to pay for some patients’ gender transitions, even though such use of taxpayer funds is prohibited by Texas law. For talking privately to Rufo, Sivadge has already been visited by FBI agents. But she told him her reason for going public now: “It made me sick that the lie called ‘gender-affirming care’ was being sold to parents and children and creating hugely lucrative profits in secret—and I was part of it.” —Emily Yoffe

→ We’re all living in Ren Faire: Lance Oppenheim’s new HBO docuseries Ren Faire focuses on “King” George Coulam, the 86-year-old owner of America’s largest Renaissance fair. It’s the most exciting succession drama since Succession. George and his brother David founded an entire town in 1974 so that they could operate the festival without interference from the authorities. The Texas Renaissance Festival now attracts half a million people every fall, and at the height of his powers, in 2021, George decided to retire—and, as the docuseries shows, his various underlings began fighting to succeed him. 

There’s general manager Jeff, a kind-hearted theater-head; Darla, a hard-nosed former elephant trainer who is Jeff’s co-manager; and Louie, an ambitious Red Bull–swigging kettle corn vendor from a rich family. As the three plot against each other, George toys with them. He sends people on pointless international business trips. He fires employees, then rehires them. He makes deals to sell the business, claiming all he wants to do is work on his art and date the young women that his Zoomer assistant finds for him on sugar daddy sites. Then, he reneges on the deals at the last minute, retreating into his mansion to listen to Enya on repeat, crown still firmly affixed. 

The truth is, George doesn’t want to retire at all. Pretending he does just allows him to continue exercising his power. Kings don’t retire—they die—and George is still kicking.

It’s difficult to watch the docuseries and not think of the upcoming election. Two men in the twilight of their lives are stubbornly refusing to relinquish power—or let the country move on. Around them, various underlings scheme: It could happen at any moment, Gavin Newsom and Matt Gaetz are perhaps telling themselves. But Biden and Trump are still kicking. —River Page

Jerry recommends NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day: Some are photos of the earth’s sky, others telescopic pictures of nebulas or galaxies, or views from the rovers on Mars, or pretty much anything about our universe. Most are beautiful and enchanting. It’s how I start my day each day.

Liam recommends The Crystals’ 1962 song “He Hit Me (And It Felt Like A Kiss)”: It’s where Lana Del Rey took the line River Page wrote about in yesterday’s Front Page, and I think it’s even darker than “Ultraviolence.” 

Send your recommendations to thefrontpage@thefp.com

Oliver Wiseman is a writer and editor for The Free Press. Follow him on X @ollywiseman

To support The Free Press, become a paid subscriber today: 

Subscribe now

And if you’re enjoying The Front Page, consider forwarding it to someone else you think might like it. 

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Substacks

The Takeaways from Three Supreme Court Rulings Jed Rubenfeld

Published

on

By

People hold anti-Trump signs in front of the Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer / AFP via Getty Images)

Yesterday the Supreme Court published its decision in the Trump immunity case. Depending on who you believe, it was either a righteous victory for the former president—or the beginning of the end of democracy as we know it. 

This politically high-stakes ruling was just one of a series of important judgments decided by the court at the end of a busy term. And reader, a confession: we’ve been too preoccupied by all the debate fallout to properly chew through it all. And so, in search of some much-needed clarity, we dropped Jed Rubenfeld a line. Jed is a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School and, whether in the classroom or on his YouTube show Straight Down the Middle, he demonstrates his knack for stripping away the hyperbole that accompanies so much legal commentary these days. In other words, he explains complicated legal cases in a way that the layman can understand. So here’s Jed, explaining the Trump immunity and two other important rulings. 

The Presidential Immunity Case 

Should a former president be immune from prosecution after leaving office? Believe it or not, we had no law on that issue for two hundred years. There didn’t need to be any: until now, no former president had ever been criminally prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. But Trump is being prosecuted for (among other things) his involvement in January 6, so the immunity issue had to be confronted.

Trump’s lawyers argued for complete immunity. The special prosecutor, Jack Smith, argued for zero immunity, and the D.C. Circuit basically adopted the prosecution’s position. The Supreme Court rejected both extremes, laying down a new test for presidential immunity and giving something to both sides. 

At its most simple, the Court’s new test first asks whether the conduct in question was an “official” act—i.e., an exercise of the president’s powers. If it was not an official act, then there’s no immunity at all. If it was official, the next question is whether the president was exercising a “core” constitutional power. If so, then there’s complete immunity—no prosecution is permissible. But if we’re dealing with an official act outside the core, then “presumptive” immunity applies—the president will be presumed immune unless the prosecution can rebut that presumption. What does that mean? Well, no one knows exactly, because it’s new law.  

It will now be up to the lower courts to apply those standards. The practical upshot: contrary to the prosecution’s hopes, there’s no way this case can be tried before the election. With more appeals likely, applying the Court’s new tests to the various allegations against Trump could take years.

The Chevron Case 

You’ve read by now that the Court overruled Chevron, but you probably have no idea what that means. Here’s the story. 

Administrative agencies do the bulk of federal lawmaking. Is that constitutional? Yes, said the Court eighty years ago. Congress can delegate legislative powers to agencies, and agencies can make law as long as they stay in their lane—i.e., within the scope of the powers Congress gave them. 

But who decides if agencies are staying in their lane? Who gets to interpret the statutes that give the agencies their power? You might think statutory interpretation is a judicial prerogative. But no. The agencies get to interpret their own statutes, said the Court in the famous 1984 Chevron case.  

Not anymore. In the just-decided Loper Bright case, the High Court overturned Chevron, telling lower courts that it’s up to them to interpret the relevant statutes. Critics make two points. First, competence. As Justice Kagan asked in her dissent, how is a court supposed to decide when an alpha amino acid polymer qualifies as a “protein” under the food and drug statutes? With Chevron gone, courts may find themselves struggling with questions they can barely understand. 

But the deeper question is about power. According to Justice Kagan, the majority’s decision is a “grasp for power”—with the justices getting the last word on more and more issues. That’s the second big critique, but it may be overstated. Read carefully, the majority opinion in Loper Bright gives Congress—not the courts—the last word. If Congress wants agencies to have the interpretive power, and require courts to defer to agency interpretations, Congress just has to say so.

Bottom line: Loper Bright might not be as big a deal as some say. The Chevron doctrine was already full of holes. Loper Bright may ultimately be seen less as a judicial power grab and more as part of a line of recent Supreme Court decisions reimposing needed checks and balances on federal agencies.

The Social Media Censorship Case 

In a case originally called Missouri v. Biden, a federal district court enjoined the Biden administration’s years-long, multiagency campaign to get social media platforms to censor disfavored content, calling that campaign “arguably the most massive attack on the freedom of speech in United States history.” But the Supreme Court reversed that injunction in the just-decided Murthy v. Missouri

Full disclosure: I’m a lawyer in many cases challenging social media censorship, including a case connected to Murthy in the lower courts. So for me, the Supreme Court’s decision is disappointing. I view government involvement in social media censorship as a major First Amendment problem, especially when the speech being blocked or shadowbanned is factually accurate or political opinion, like the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was suppressed by all the major platforms in the run-up to the 2020 election.   

But here’s what you need to know. Murthy did not reach the merits. It reversed solely on the basis of lack of standing. According to the Court, the plaintiffs hadn’t shown that the government had specifically targeted them for censorship and even worse, the plaintiffs had shown only that they’d been censored in the past. That wasn’t enough, said the Court, to establish standing for an injunction.

Because the Murthy decision is based on standing, the fight is far from over. Murthy leaves the door open for other plaintiffs, with firmer standing, to bring essentially the same claims. For more details on this, see my Murthy episode on Straight Down the Middle:

One more thing on Murthy. . . Free Press contributor Jay Bhattacharya was one of the plaintiffs in the case. He wrote about it for us when they won in a lower court last year. We asked him what he made of the Supreme Court’s decision. 

He told us that he was as optimistic about their chances in a fresh case in a lower court, but said that “our loss in the Supreme Court points to the need for Congress and voters to act to protect American free speech rights now that it is clear that the Supreme Court will not do so. Congress should pass a law prohibiting the executive branch and associated federal bureaucracies from censoring Americans via direct and indirect pressure on social media.” 

He added that “In a sense, by exposing and publicizing the government’s censorship operation, which cannot survive in the sunlight, we have already won despite the disappointing result in the Supreme Court.”

Jed Rubenfeld is professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School. 

Become a Free Press subscriber today: 

Subscribe now

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

Niall Ferguson: The Democratic Party Awaits Its Gorbachev Niall Ferguson

Published

on

By

“The big and convenient lie that Biden was compos mentis is now over; the big and inconvenient truth that Trump is out for revenge is taking its place.” (Photo by Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)

The most impressive feature of Thursday’s debate between Brezhnev and Andropov—sorry, Trump and Biden—is that anyone watching was in the least surprised by what it revealed.

The president is senile. The former president is a blowhard. Both these truths have been obvious for years. Yet somehow The New York Times editorial board, the hosts of Pod Save America, and numerous other eminent liberal authorities were shocked by what CNN broadcast from Atlanta.

It all put me in mind of Donald Rumsfeld’s typology of knowledge from back in 2002. “As we know,” he told journalists at a briefing about the alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, “there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.”

This framework can be traced back to a 1955 paper by the psychologists Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham. Rumsfeld himself attributed it to NASA administrator William Graham, with whom he had worked in the 1990s on the congressional Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States

But the category Rumsfeld omitted—the one I’ve been thinking of since Thursday—is the category of “unknown knowns.” These are perfectly obvious dangers that decision-makers unconsciously or willfully ignore because they do not accord with their preconceptions. 

Last year we saw another striking example of an unknown known. After the pogrom carried out by Hamas against Israel on October 7, 2023, elite university campuses erupted with protests that in many cases were pro-Hamas or overtly antisemitic. Some of the world’s most brilliant investors were shocked to discover that the elite colleges they have been supporting with their hundreds of millions of dollars have enrolled or employed a substantial number of leftists whose “progressive” views include variants of antisemitism. 

But this has been clear to anyone who bothered to visit the Harvard or Yale campus over the last decade.   

The question is: Are we dealing here with genuine myopia? Or are the people professing to be shocked by Harvard antisemitism or Biden’s senility more like Captain Renault in Casablanca, who professes to be “shocked, shocked” that people are gambling at Rick’s nightclub, even as he pockets his winnings? The answer is that they are much closer to Captain Renault than they would care to admit to themselves because, like him, they belong to a thoroughly corrupt political system.

People love to ask: “Are these really the best candidates we can come up with?” What they mean is: “Why has the American political system provided voters with this terrible choice between two embarrassing old men for the post of president?” 

It is a hard question to answer if you refuse to accept that our system today evinces similar symptoms to that of other degenerating polities, notably the Soviet Union in the 1980s. (There are other examples. The last communist leaders of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, and Romania were all in their seventies.)

Since my latest column in these pages—which made the argument that we’ve recently become more like the Soviets than we want to face—there have been dissenting opinions, from Jonah Goldberg and Noah Smith, among others. However, as Ross Douthat acknowledged, one undeniable common factor is a leadership selection process that produces embarrassing old men.

There are five structural reasons for American political senescence.


Read more

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

June 30, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson

Published

on

By

 

Continue Reading

Shadow Banned

Copyright © 2023 mesh news project // awake, not woke // news, not narrative // deep inside the filter bubble