This is a surprisingly succinct, remarkably astute, not-really-objectionable take on Trump from one of the men the president utterly curb-stomped in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries: President Trump is a flash-bang grenade thrown into Washington by the forgotten men and women of America. The fact that his first year as Commander in Chief disoriented and
In case you missed it, American Greatness publisher Chris Buskirk had a short commentary in Tuesday's USA Today (actually, a counterpoint to the newspaper's editorial) on James Comey's preposterous new book. Buskirk writes, among other things: "Comey reveals in his book that he was influenced by the widespread assumption that Clinton would win, and he didn’t want
A plea from Slate, of all places. Jim Newell writes: But if we’re now in the “end stages,” at Month 16 of Trump’s 48-month term, then impeachment and conviction, or some manner of forced resignation, would seem to be the only source of this impending demise. For any of those things to happen, the continuation
Take some time to read Josh Blackman's account of his recent lecture on free speech at CUNY Law School. It is at once infuriating and terrifying—today's protester against "hate speech" is tomorrow's lawyer, judge, and legislator. Blackman would not bow to the heckler's veto, however. The most jaw-dropping exchange occurs midway: A student shouted out
Julia Carrie Wong was among the first Facebook users at Harvard 14 years ago. She writes of her regrets in The Guardian today. But she has some choice words for Mark Zuckerberg, whose hypocrisy on privacy should be better known: In the intervening years, I’ve learned that Zuckerberg values his own privacy so much that
Over at Vanity Fair, Tina Nguyen, who not long ago referred to this devil-may-care publication as "the somber, Trump-inclined academic journal American Greatness," has a roundup of reaction from the Right to James Comey's insufferably priggish new memoir. Our own Chris Buskirk's quote made the headline of the piece. Read it and grin.
The most terrifying thing about Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance on Tuesday before a special joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees wasn’t anything he had to say about privacy, or the mishandling of millions of users’ personal data, or creepy Russian advertising in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, on those questions,
Ignoramuses have feelings, too, you know! (Via Revealing Politics.)
The Boston Globe's Hiawatha Bray writes: I’d been looking forward to watching Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg take an oath to tell the truth to Congress. But the Senate committee that heard Zuckerberg’s testimony on Tuesday afternoon chose not to swear him in. Instead, they decided to trust the man, a strategy that hasn’t worked
The Washington Examiner reports Mark Zuckerberg had this to say in response to a question about challenges his company faces evaluating "hate speech" versus "legitimate political discourse": Hate speech, I am optimistic that over a five to 10 year period we'll have AI tools that can get into some of the nuances, the linguistic nuances of
