Daily Digest

---

• Photo of the Year
• The AP goes Sgt. Schultz
• NY Times: Slow Joe Getting Slower
• Consumers Aren’t So Dumb
• When cops criticize BLM on social media

Photo of the Year Posted: 16 May 2021 11:52 AM PDT (Steven Hayward) I’m sure most readers have seen this stunning photo from Israel from a few nights back, showing a Hamas rocket attack that was likely attempting to overwhelm Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system. The early reports on this photo didn’t make clear which was which; I assumed (correctly it turns out) that the missiles on the right are the Hamas rockets, and the unusual swirl pattern of the launches on the left are the Iron Dome interceptors. I have no technical expertise in the domain of missile defense, but the spatial pattern of the Iron Dome is probably explained as the complex targeting acquisition function of the system. It seems not too much of a stretch to see this as 21st century rocket technology meeting 20th century rocket technology. I read that Iron Dome succeeds in intercepting up to 90 percent of the missiles Hamas launches. Here’s another picture equally stunning: Chaser—Apropos Scott’s item earlier today on AP, this meme really can’t wait for next Saturday: This one, too:

The AP goes Sgt. Schultz Posted: 16 May 2021 05:36 AM PDT (Scott Johnson) “I know nothing” was the comic catchphrase of Sgt. Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes. He occasionally varied or elaborated on it, adding “I see nothing.” In the clip below, for example, he declares, “I see nothing. I was not here. I did not even get up this morning.” After its customary warning to protect civilian life, the IDF took out the 12-story Jala Tower housing Hamas military intelligence offices as well as offices for media organs including Al Jazeera and the Associated Press. As far as I can tell from reports such as this photo-filled story in the Daily Mail, no lives were lost in the bombing. The Biden administration nevertheless found the occasion fit to lecture Israel yesterday “that ensuring the safety and security of journalists and independent media is a paramount responsibility.” According to the Jerusalem Post, Israeli authorities have showed Biden administration officials the “smoking gun” proving that Hamas worked out of the building. I demand proof that intelligent life exists within the Biden administration. Hearing of Israel’s treatment of the building as a target, I wondered about the cluelessness of the AP. The AP, however, thinks it is in a position to bitch and make demands of its own. In the statement embedded in the tweet below, the AP goes full Sgt. Schultz on us. AP CEO: "AP's bureau has been in this building for 15 years. We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building. This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We'd never knowingly put our journalists at risk."https://t.co/8UOXMXqwc2 pic.twitter.com/cd4nJFBEiL — Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) May 15, 2021 By contrast with Sgt. Schultz, the AP’s alleged cluelessness lacks a comic element. Taking the AP seriously, I demand evidence that the AP didn’t know it was holed up with genocidal terrorists. If such proof is forthcoming, I demand proof that the AP is a bona fide news organization. Absent such proof, we may have to limit ourselves to a demonstration of the internal contradictions of the Associated Press. The invaluable Andy Ngo provides it in the devastating tweet below. Israel says your building also housed Hamas military assets. All of you were given warning to evacuate, which you did, before the place was destroyed. And AP last year released guidelines saying journalists shouldn't focus on property destruction. https://t.co/ve6i2NTwIe — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) May 15, 2021 Jack Posobiec adds an exclamation point. The exclamation point is appropriate to the case. AP stated we must not focus on property destruction it is only the underlying grievance that matters! https://t.co/qnZsQJNrtK — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) May 15, 2021 Via Nick Arama/RedState and Brett T./Twitchy. UPDATE: Omri Ceren adds this. Hamas systematically uses the media towers and studios in Gaza for military purposes. They've been doing it since they took over in late 2000s. It would count as an open secret but it's not even a secret. Anyone who pretends they don't know is either very new to this, or lying. pic.twitter.com/VIX5H0p05h — Omri Ceren (@omriceren) May 16, 2021

NY Times: Slow Joe Getting Slower Posted: 15 May 2021 08:41 PM PDT (Steven Hayward) The New York Times has a remarkable story out this weekend that offers its typical “behind the scenes” construction of how the White House operates—in this case, under President Biden. While the story tries to soften the blows with lots of fluff and filler, it paints a devastating picture of Biden for the careful reader. It explains he has a quick temper, takes a long time to make decisions, and needs to be heavily propped up by staff to function. It reminds us that Biden is indeed a creature of the Senate, where he mostly attended hearings, made speeches, fiddled with legislation, and seldom made any decisions that suggested executive skill (Quick—can anyone name a major piece of Biden legislation? The crime bill of 1994? Likely written mostly by the Clinton Justice Department. The bankruptcy reform bill of 2007? Likely written largely by Delaware-based banks. You get the picture.) Here’s one early paragraph: On policy issues, Mr. Biden, 78, takes days or weeks to make up his mind as he examines and second-guesses himself and others. It is a method of governing that can feel at odds with the urgency of a country still reeling from a pandemic and an economy struggling to recover. One passage details weeks and weeks of meetings, briefings, and deliberations about how to confront Putin, culminating with this astonishing paragraph: In the end, Mr. Biden called Mr. Putin directly and then delivered a public statement on Russia sanctions that lasted only five minutes and 49 seconds. For as much as Mr. Biden projects an aura of ease — with his frequent backslapping, references to Irish poetry and liberal use of the phrase "c'mon, man" — his aides say it takes a lot of behind-the-scenes work to prepare him to project an assured demeanor. The subtext of the first sentence here is that Biden is simply not up to the give-and-take of a conversation with a foreign leader. No wonder Vice President Harris seems to be the person who is making personal contact with foreign leaders. The timing of the Times story is interesting, as Biden’s “honeymoon” period looks to be over, his ambitious legislative and spending agenda is in trouble on Capitol Hill, and multiple self-induced crises are piling up in ways that bring back memories of the ineptitude of Jimmy Carter.

Consumers Aren’t So Dumb Posted: 15 May 2021 01:48 PM PDT (John Hinderaker) The University of Michigan’s Consumer Survey found that consumer confidence slipped in May to 82.8, down from 88.3 in April. News outlets generally purported to be surprised by this development: RTT News: “Consumer sentiment in the U.S. has unexpectedly decreased in the month of May….” Bloomberg: “U.S. consumer sentiment deteriorated unexpectedly in early May…” Yahoo Finance: “U.S. consumer sentiment deteriorated unexpectedly in early May….” MSN: “U.S. consumer sentiment index slumps unexpectedly in May….” Reuters: “U.S. consumer sentiment unexpectedly dropped in early May….” The Guardian: “[The U. of Michigan consumer survey] fell unexpectedly this month….” And so on. Why might consumer confidence be slipping, “unexpectedly”? Maybe because of prices for basic goods rising faster than they have in many years. Maybe because unemployment remains stubbornly high, so that a re-run of Carter-era stagflation looks like a real possibility. Maybe because people are seeing lines of cars at gas stations. Maybe because major companies have prioritized being “woke” over serving their customers. And maybe because many millions of Americans think their president is non compos mentis. Watch for consumers to surprise the pundits and forecasters often in the months to come.

When cops criticize BLM on social media Posted: 15 May 2021 01:35 PM PDT (Paul Mirengoff) Police officers in various jurisdictions are being disciplined, and even fired, for expressing negative views about the BLM movement and protests. Here, from the Washington Times, are a few examples: Two policewomen in New Jersey were fired [in one case] or demoted [in the other] for calling BLM protesters "terrorists". . . . Another law enforcement officer recently got in trouble for his online response to basketball great LeBron James's tweet about a Columbus, Ohio, policeman fatally shooting a knife-wielding teenage girl involved in a street fight. "You're next," Mr. James wrote. So you don't care if a Black person kills another Black person, but you do care if a White cop kills a Black person, even if he's doing it to save the life of another Black person?" [the policeman] asks in the video, in which his department affiliation is not shown. He was suspended for a week. In Norfolk, Virginia, police Lt. William Kelly anonymously donated $25 to the defense fund for Kyle Rittenhouse, who stands accused of murder and attempted murder after shooting people during rioting last year in Kenosha, Wisconsin. "Don't be discouraged by the political class of law enforcement leadership," Mr. Kelly wrote, without identifying himself or his department. After what the police union in Norfolk labeled a cursory investigation, Mr. Kelly was fired. He has since sued the city. I think it’s reasonable for police departments and city officials to want police employees to refrain from publicly commenting about law enforcement issues. But if an officer is punished for doing so, it should be pursuant to a policy that was communicated to that officer before he or she made the comment deemed objectionable. In addition, the policy limiting speech should apply to all public discussion of policing and law enforcement issues, regardless of which side of the political divide it takes. I suspect that only one side is being punished for speaking out. In fact, says the Times, “in the most recent examples, all of the officers took what might be dubbed a conservative or pro-police viewpoint and were harshly disciplined.” In the case of the two New Jersey officers, for example, the political body that terminated one and suspended the other is comprised solely of Democrats," according to their attorney. If so, it’s unlikely that an officer who publicly expressed a pro-BLM position on social media would be disciplined at all. A number of these cases are in court or headed there. We’ll see how that litigation goes.

You are subscribed to email updates from Power LinePower Line. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States