I don't see the connection between Sen. Kennedy's quip and the author's criticism of it. Omarova's politics and policy preferences make her a "Comrade" as much as a "professor", IMO. Her most startling, and absolutely terrifying, suggestion is that everyone's money be put under the management of the Fed. You can't have your deposit account at your local bank - you have to give your money to the Fed; trust them, they'll do right by you. "Sorry, but your request for withdrawal of funds to pay for your child's medical care has been denied because you criticized POTUS." Yes, that will happen if the Fed has your money; I have no doubt about it.
I think you're missing the point on Saule Omarova. She may have left Russia, but it doesn't seem she truly left the Soviet Union behind. While she now worms around the topic, she stridently extolled the wonders of communism until practically the moment of her nomination. Her very own words have been her strongest accuser, and the horrific toll of that hateful ideology rebukes her far more than I could.
Regarding Ivermectin, the real issue is the FDA, NIH, and CDC are actively ignoring or preventing real science and interfering in doctor/patient relationships. These agencies are completely captured. Just look into Vitamin D deficiency. Why is the CDC not talking about this, at all? Well, it's $0.01 each. Draw your own conclusions. Ivermectin may (I think likely does) have benefit, especially in combination with general immune support. The alphabets will absolutely NOT look at it honestly. Think about Prozac, Vioxx, Oxycontin, and many more. Check out The Big Fat Surprise (Nina Teicholtz) and the approved "here's your heart attack" diet.
The stunning conflicts of interest and hypocrisy of these agencies is THE story. How did the left become infatuated with big pharma? That in itself would make one heck of a story.
On a completely different note, I appreciate for your presence. I may disagree or agree with either of you on any particular topic, but applaud you both. As I and many others are now experiencing, sacrificing one's job security for integrity is a daunting path. May we all come through it stronger.
Bari - I have read you many times and appreciated your positions for what they were - your thoughts of how the world is and should be. Many times we agreed and sometimes we did not. Just came across this piece here (https://www.commentary.org/articles/bari-weiss/resist-woke-revolution/) for the first time and decided that I need to financially contribute to your continued effort to challenge us to assume a greater role in the midst of this turmoil. Thanks to you I am now looking forward to and not shirking from this challenge!
While watching Kennedy’s questioning of Omarova, my first reaction was: why focus so intently on whether or not she had ‘resigned’ from a communist youth group from decades ago and not drill down on her recent statements to assess whether or not she still adheres to that ideology? I’m not defending her membership in said group per se, I’m just viewing it through the lens that joining said group may or may not have been considered a cultural norm in the former USSR. It’s her recent statements that make me question her suitability for this position, such as expressing a desire to bankrupt oil and coal companies to further a ‘green’ agenda. I don’t really care where she was born or what ethnicity she is. I found her response more deflective than elegant. She can’t help where she was born, but she CAN help what she now believes. She didn’t convince me at all that she had left that ideology behind her, or that she wouldn’t be guided by that ideology if appointed as Comptroller.
Re Beto: I disagree that he’s hot. I do agree that he is indeed a strange man. The fact that he wrote the following passage speaks volumes (regardless of any subsequent remorse on his part):
“One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams,” he wrote, according to Reuters. “As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.” (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/15/orourke-not-proud-writing-1223903)
The problem with Saule Omarova isn’t the place of her birth but the fact that she retains many of the odious, authoritarian ideas associated with the place of her birth. In short, she’s a leftie nut case—and our absurd president wants to make her Comptroller of the Currency.
It is true that for some reasons (but definitely not because of her commitment to the communist ideology; the feature is more closely aligned with her Middle Asia origin) Saule Omarova is expected to be an eager proponent of leftists approach, according which the (enlightened!) elite is free to make decisions on the life of society, and the rest of the people are entitled to follow the orders. Her tools are suggested to be economical and financial tools, OK.
But what’s about CRT, about “progressivism”, and the related theories? These theories actually have the same goal, just using other tools. As the matter of fact, the self-proclaimed “moral elite” is attempting to determine, is your attitude or views (even being a private comments) “proper from the moral point”, or you should be humiliated and even punished.
There is no difference between the financing of the projects, which the ruling elite find “good and proper”, and the banishment of the company board members, who are promoting the projects, which the elite don’t approve (under the inventing and unrelated pretexts, like “it was found that the grand-grandfather of some person was a slave owner”).
I suggest you look up Omarova's proposal for the nationalization of America's banking system, "The People's Ledger." It lays out (her own words here) "a blueprint for a comprehensive restructuring of the central bank balance sheet as the basis for redesigning the core architecture of modern finance. Focusing on the U.S. Federal Reserve System (the Fed), the Article outlines a series of structural reforms that would radically redefine the role of a central bank as the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a democratic economy." In plain language, she proposes turning the Fed into the all-powerful allocator of financial resources, supposedly into the most productive uses. Sounds kind of like the central planners of the late, unlamented USSR, eh? If you're not too intellectually lazy yourself, you might take a look at the article in which she elaborates this lunatic notion.
In the spirit of Bari Weiss’s liberalism, Saule T. Omarova wrote an academic paper proposing changes to the monetary system to make it more democratic and address the digitalization of currency. It was a scholarly piece written for scholars to explore ideas. She has put forward for consideration and discussion, in her own words: “This Article resets the debate and offers a holistic, integrative approach to institutional change. It advocates comprehensive reform of the structure and function of the central bank’s balance sheet as the basis for redesigning the core architecture of modern finance.”
“Deliberately ambitious in scope and substance, this proposal defines the frontier of reform possibilities and throws into sharp relief what is really at stake in this process.”
Two correlate her proposals with; “Sounds kind of like the central planners of the late, unlamented USSR, eh?” Is the height of intellectual laziness, it is apparent that you didn’t read her introduction to the piece; if you had, you wouldn’t have made the USSR reference.
Omarova’s proposal to “democratize” the US monetary system boils down to a centralization of authority in the (unelected) Federal Reserve Bank—hence my reference to Soviet-style economic planning. Or to put it another way, a cabal of experts would decide what is financially “democratic.” That’s the essence of her “holistic, integrative approach.” Gosh, what could possibly go wrong there?
FYI, I did read the abstract—which is best characterized as word salad.
I don't pretend to be Gilgamesh but I am familiar (a bit) with the Central Asia mentality. The Western approach to the social issues is not the only possible; we like this approach and (moreover!) we believe that it is the best in a long run. OK. But others also exist. The ideas are odious only for the "western ears", so Tomas is a little... over emotional at this point, but the approach is definitely authoritarian.
I am not going to waste electrons explaining fine details about Kazakh clans (zhuz), about their understanding of society (no meritocracy but subordination), etc. Just open GOOGLE and read a bit about organization of the state, "elections" and social life in modern Kazakhstan; sorry - most of these materials are in Russian, Kazakhstan is - amusingly! - mostly Russian-speaking country, a large (about 20%) Russian minority and most of educated Kazakhs are well fluent in Russian (and not so fluent in Kazakh!).
Actually, what you call Russian Empire (and then USSR) doesn’t differ enough from British Empire. Just don’t be confused by the fact that it takes to travel over the sea to get to India, whereas Kazakhstan can be reached from Moscow and St. Petersburg by the ground. You know that India fully came under the suzerainty of Britain in 1857, and Kazakhstan came under the suzerainty of Russia in 1867… Now, would you refer to the “typical British mentality” discussing the political views of Mahatma Gandhi (born in 1869)?
Regarding “odious”… Frankly, it is not comfortable for me to challenge you because also I dislike this approach a lot (I am well aware about all aspects of these quasi-communist, quasi-Middle Asia approaches). Nevertheless, “Plato is my friend; Aristotle is my friend, but my greatest friend is truth”. Everything should be considered in the historical context, or we will shortly find ourselves in position of blaming Washington for being slave owner and charging Jefferson for failure to maintain “the diversity” of his government.
Omarova's approach to "social issues” may be somehow applicable in some societies a hundred years ago, but now and here (in US) this is a tool for grabbing the power on the expense of destroying our country and society (in some way similar to the fueling of anti-Semitic drive in Weimar Germany).
Oh, for crying out loud. Omarova’s ideological orientation has nothing to do with her ethnicity. She’s a product of the deservedly defunct Soviet system, and though she left that country, she didn’t shed the dogma that had been drilled into her. Omarova has rhapsodized about the “gender equity” that existed, she claims, in the USSR—as if such a term means anything at all in the context of of totalitarian police state.
Oh, and by the way, it so happens that a certain well-known leader of the USSR, J.V. Stalin, was not a Russian but a Georgian. So was his secret police chief, Beria. On the other hand, I don’t recall that an Indian ever served as Britain’s prime minister in the days of the Raj…
Yes, Ganhdy never was a British statesman; this is exactly what I want to say. He was not because (last but not least!) he didn’t have British mentality despite of being born in British Empire. At the same time, Sonia Ganhdy (with her western Italian mentality) was an Indian leader. How it comes? That’s simple, India was (and is now) in transition to the new age! The leader with Western mentality was in demand!
You are right, not ethnicity, not DNA but the place where she grew up (parents, neighbors, etc.); should I refer you to Kim novel by Kipling? It is very good that you are so aware about USSR history, I can even add more names of Stalin's top police and security people of Georgian origin, such as Kobulov, Dekanozov, etc.
Whereas the Marx ideas are “international”, the particular details of the “state design” are closely related to the elite mentality and habits, and these details are very substantial for the people. I dare to state that a particular state model of the USSR was significantly related to the fact that a good chunk its elite in 30-40th originated from the eastern areas (Georgia particularly). See Marxist Yugoslavia to compare with…
Reading your analyses, which are highly informed and reasonably constructed, remind me of what an academician once said to me, in all sincerity, during a discussion about differences between populations: "after you eliminate all the variables, the two groups are the same".
I'm sorry that happened to you and I'm sure it sucks when you're forced into such a position that creates the kind of internal conflict between what you view as being morally right and what is in the best interests of your career. I'm sure NYT was somewhere you long since dreamed of being a journalist for and I can imagine that the assignment was one you were very excited to receive and one you justifiably saw as a potential breakthrough moment in your life and career. I'm not surprised this happened to you though and it's equally unsurprising that they tossed you aside like an afterthought once you did what you should have done. Maybe if you had done what they wanted you to do you would be in a much different position today but that would come at a a cost to your longstanding credibility that you would have to be comfortable living with. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for what you did and I really wish there were more journalists out there who took the role your profession plays in our democracy as serious as you clearly do. The entire Russia Collusion Hoax may have been manufactured by a few amateur communications people on a flailing presidential campaign but the real damage was done by the selfish, unprofessional and deceptive actions taken by countless people in your profession. To become a good journalist requires some of the same traits that makes good attorneys and good politicians. You need to have an unbreakable level of confidence in your own capabilities and also have enough of an ego to take the kinds of risk that give the needed boost along the journey to reach career success. This is a healthy kind of an ego though and is one that doesn't cloud your judgment or suppress the intelligence that allowed you to be in the position to succeed in the first place. It also requires a strong commitment to integrity and an understanding that no matter how attractive the short term benefits may appear, unethical conduct as a means to get ahead will limit just how success you can reach in your profession. The answer won't ever be found in asserting personal interests ahead of professional ethics no matter how far you look. Success takes time, it takes patience and it takes sacrifice. Even with that many people are never successful in their careers because it just wasn't meant to be. I hope that's not the case for you though and I really wish that you are rewarded for what you did today by enjoying the future gifts that comes from bucking the trend of media disinformation and having personal integrity mean something to you than the materialistic rewards of doing the dirty work of others. You're obviously very intelligent and you have the right mixture of fighting spirit and pragmatism that makes me very confident that great things will be heard from you in journalism.
In order for that to happen there finally needs to be some kind of action taken that forces extensive reform throughout the American Media Institution. Enough is enough already. I'm not some kind of an idealist who has been surprised to learn that our so-called unbiased mainstream media are actually corrupt propagandists for the DNC and divisive special interests. I was the target of a hit job coordinated between local Democrats and their incestuous slaves in the media because of the threat I posed to the monopoly of power that had been in place for generations so I know just how blatantly dishonest and uncaring towards the truth or the damage the media can cause people when they abuse the power that was generously given them when our Founders envisioned their role as the Fourth Estate of American Democacy. Like everyone else I suffered through the Russia Hoax for over two years and have been waiting for accountability to be had now that it has been proven the entire scandal was a coordinated attempt between Democrats and the media to delegitimize a lawfully elected president. We all watched as the media ran cover for House Democrats as Nancy Pelosi essentially pissed all over the US Constitution in bringing articles of impeachment against a president for nothing resembling a high crime or misdemeanor. Anyone held accountable? Then there was the coordinated effort that took place to censor potentially negative information about Democrats and Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election which served as part of the much bigger and more elaborate four year plan the media was very much an active participant in to make sure Trump would not win a second term in office. They gaslighted us almost daily each time a compliant democratic governor in a swing state would unilaterally mandate extensive and unwarranted overhauls to state election laws through executive action and helped frame the current standard that even the slightest objection to these changes are veiled attempts to promote racist voter suppression as a means to maintain the so-called power and privilege of white supremacy in American politics and society. It has been the epitome of intellectually dishonest gaslighting and along the way they have intentionally defamed countless innocent people only to defiantly and arrogantly claim immunity from their inaccurate and delusional interpretation of NYT v. Sullivan. Again, have there been consequences?
Of course I am asking that rhetorically as I know there haven't been any and I am at the point where I don't think we will ever see any come down ever. What we have seen has been Pulitzers, lucrative book deals and six figure speaking tours dished out to the worst of the worst Provocateurs of defamation and disinformation the media has to offer. What message does that send the rest of the profession? It certainly isn't a good one when, as I said before, a certain level of an abrasive ego is needed if you want to succeed in the media world. The impending destruction Democrats will face next November will only ratchet things up a couple hundred degrees and by the time we are in the heat of the 2024 campaign season things will be so out of control that there won't be a single honest and trustworthy journalist out there as they all strive to be the next 20-something Pulitzer winner that comes from breaking the next pretend GOP act of treason. If the media were vulnerable to being mislead by their little peckers in 2020 then 2024 will be an absolute disaster. Something needs to be done but I am very pessimistic I will see that.
Inflation is THE MOST regressive tax there is... just because someone is an over educated ivy league elitist brat totally isolated from the unwashed doesn't mean they are "smart people"... never underestimate the obtuse cruelty of the zoom enabled anointed to twist reality into their preferred vision... If Cowen thinks the Fed's actions over the past 20 years is in any way Republican or Democrat then he's not paying attention...both parties have encouraged the Fed to open the spigots for them and their friends on Wallstreet to rape and pilage in fine Boomer fashion.
You deserved to lose that year salivating over Russiagate like a good little mindless MSM consumer... never forget it and there is a chance for your soul...
Suale Omarova's philosophy is for complete government control over people's money... She doesn't believe in the private banking system... he is right to be confused as to whether she is a communist based on her past comments... but like many he feels the need to put on a show in front of the cameras and so he looks like a jackass.
See Matt Taibbi's piece on the unmitigated shit journalism surrounding the Rittenhouse case... at some point it will require self immolation on the part of journalists to win back even an ounce of respect from the common man...
As for ivermectin... it is DIRT CHEAP, has a better safety profile then even ANY over the counter cold medicine, has been given over 5 BILLION doses worldwide and Doctors who actually treat covid patients as opposed to merely talking about it say that it is helpful in a multi pronged treatment regiment...it is a proven Cl-3 protease inhibitor (FYI that's the modality of action for the new pharma miracle pill at over $800 a course) ...so why not give it to everybody on the planet??? Because of the MSM and their corporate overlords...see above about gasoline and matches...
With all due respect regarding Omarova: she gave a witty but ultimately deflecting response to what are truly some communist-like state economic policies she’s inclined to pursue. Very unamerican. I would recommend reading the WSJ’s editorial on her on 11/15/21.
I didn’t watch her hearing, maybe the Senator very well deserves to be called out. But she’s not innocent in the matter. How I see it. I like your news roundup, thanks!
Wow. It's even worse than I thought earlier today.
It turns out Nellie's account of this exchange between Sen. Kennedy and Omarova is completely dishonest, or recklessly careless, or maybe incompetent. She misrepresents it both in sequence and in context.
Here's Nellie's account:
[Sen. Kennedy said] “You used to be a member of a group called The Young Communists. . . . I don’t know whether to call you professor or comrade.” Her elegant (and American) response: “I could not choose where I was born.”
Sounds like the "choose where I was born" comment was in response to the "professor or comrade" comment, right? Or at a minimum, that the "professor or comrade" comment preceded it.
NOT AT ALL!
Turns out, the "choose where I was born" comment came long BEFORE the "professor or comrade" comment. Nellie *deliberately* edited the exchange deceitfully. (Did she used to work at CBS or MSNBC??)
Furthermore, the context of Omarova's "choose where I was born" comment related to her point that she was a part of the Communist organization in question *solely* because she was born in the Soviet Union, as (according to her) "Everybody in that country was a member of the Komsomol, which was the Communist Youth organization".
It was anything BUT an "elegant (and American) response". And Nellie provided it out of sequence and out of context.
This Republican, Veteran, and private sector business owner thanks you for your honesty and courage. It can't be easy going up against a tsunami of politically-inspired chicanery.
The fiscal side effect of a pandemic with just-in-time delivery is to throw the supply chain into disarray.
"The direct inflationary effect of bottlenecks will likely be limited after relative prices have adjusted. However, sustained inflationary pressures could emerge if bottlenecks persist long enough to trigger an upward shift in wage growth and inflation expectations."
Well done, ladies. Thank you for another digest. Hope you see passed the increasingly unhelpful and politically biased feedback in the comments these days to those of is who still appreciate your striving for open-minded journalism, even when our opinions disagree. Have a good Thanksgiving week!
All the wailing about how dishonest the media is, and then we have this; "If you lived in those neighborhoods on fire, you were not supposed to get an extinguisher. The proper response — the only acceptable response — was to see the brick and mortar torn down, to watch the fires burn, and to say: thank you." Nellie Bowles makes the above bizarre hyperbolic statement that could be used to exemplify dishonest media!
With respect, I thought this sentence was absolutely scathing — people who “lived above the shop” were put in physical danger when businesses were torched, yet Good Samaritans who tried to douse the flames were also threatened with harm.
I have to express my frustration on this one. I, like many others, subscribed to Bari's Substack because I sought thoughtful, open-minded, independent thought -- an alternative to the mocking tone of unearned surety which characterizes most "mainstream" Borg media, very notably including the NYT.
This article, while ably written and touching on interesting topics, so clearly enacts most of what is wanting in the aforementioned Borg media that I feel compelled to point out a couple instances. This piece was truly disappointing. Some notes:
- Your understatement in the Kenosha piece is stunning. Quite obviously, per your story, the country's "paper of record" suppressed and purposefully distorted clearly newsworthy material to propagandize people into ignoring or underplaying massive and destructive national riots. This was done so as to mock and characterize as racist concern about these riots, in turn done so as to smear the president and his followers, in turn done so as to shape the election through politically-coordinated deception of the "democratic" populace the NYT aims to control. This is now being used to defame someone who went (perhaps stupidly) to put out these fires. It does not strike me as journalistically appropriate or honest to treat this prolonged and purposeful distortion as a matter of mild academic interest ("something odd") or social-justice pathos related to a handful of people because they were poor. This is deceitful and immoral propaganda that significantly affected national politics.
- Per your description of it, the Ivermectin piece referenced, which is claimed as "definitive," implicitly acknowledges that a large bulk of research on the pill suggests it works to sharply reduce covid infection and symptoms. The criticism is, instead, related to the mechanism by which it works in said studies. It states that IVM works *because of* a happenstance regional correlation (with deworming), not on its own, such that it wouldn't work in, say, the US. This is a tacit acknowledgement of a position that the elite journalistic class as a whole has insulted as conspiratorial for months: That there is clear evidence that this cheap generic has been effective in reducing covid infection and symptoms. Stunningly, after this implicit acknowledgement is made, Nellie offers no criticism or apology, and doesn't make anything explicit. I can only reach the conclusion that this article is deemed "definitive" for opportunistic reasons (consciously or subconsciously), because it is the first well-written piece that A) accepts (as one must) the *obvious evidence of efficacy* while B) maintaining the tone of smug dismissal about the drug. Of course, Scott Alexander may likely be right; he's a brilliant writer and thinker. What's noteworthy is the extraordinary implicit bias, smugness, and avoidance at play in this blurb. It's an exact carbon copy of how the mainstream press treats these subjects (see below).
- As many others have pointed out, your characterization of the Omarova interaction betrays an extraordinary bias and (willful?) lack of understanding of the candidate in question. This is combined with classic elite-media smugness, and played off as a sense of humor and even patriotism.
- You, and many other journalists, owe an enormous *apology* for ragging on (and failing to criticize) Russiagate despite an absolute lack of trustworthy evidence. The corporate press treated the story as absolute damning fact when it was, always, nothing of the kind. (I'm not as familiar with your work; at the very least, you didn't make the slightest attempt at skeptical criticism.) This is absolute, *election-stealing* journalistic malpractice. Journalists deprived the American people of the right to make an informed vote, by systematically lying to them and misrepresenting and overstating reality. American journalism -- really quite close to all of it -- has a moral obligation to apologize profusely, publicly, repeatedly, and with great self-flagellation. Instead, we get a self-absorbed throwaway joke about the time you wasted expending extraordinary bias towards the propagation of a massively distorting calculated lie.
Just a stunning lack of self-awareness on display here. The exact tone of clueless superiority that makes the NYT/Vox/etc so jarring.
I am tight fisted but you have gotten my financial support because you provide real diversity and truth
I don't see the connection between Sen. Kennedy's quip and the author's criticism of it. Omarova's politics and policy preferences make her a "Comrade" as much as a "professor", IMO. Her most startling, and absolutely terrifying, suggestion is that everyone's money be put under the management of the Fed. You can't have your deposit account at your local bank - you have to give your money to the Fed; trust them, they'll do right by you. "Sorry, but your request for withdrawal of funds to pay for your child's medical care has been denied because you criticized POTUS." Yes, that will happen if the Fed has your money; I have no doubt about it.
I think you're missing the point on Saule Omarova. She may have left Russia, but it doesn't seem she truly left the Soviet Union behind. While she now worms around the topic, she stridently extolled the wonders of communism until practically the moment of her nomination. Her very own words have been her strongest accuser, and the horrific toll of that hateful ideology rebukes her far more than I could.
Regarding Ivermectin, the real issue is the FDA, NIH, and CDC are actively ignoring or preventing real science and interfering in doctor/patient relationships. These agencies are completely captured. Just look into Vitamin D deficiency. Why is the CDC not talking about this, at all? Well, it's $0.01 each. Draw your own conclusions. Ivermectin may (I think likely does) have benefit, especially in combination with general immune support. The alphabets will absolutely NOT look at it honestly. Think about Prozac, Vioxx, Oxycontin, and many more. Check out The Big Fat Surprise (Nina Teicholtz) and the approved "here's your heart attack" diet.
The stunning conflicts of interest and hypocrisy of these agencies is THE story. How did the left become infatuated with big pharma? That in itself would make one heck of a story.
On a completely different note, I appreciate for your presence. I may disagree or agree with either of you on any particular topic, but applaud you both. As I and many others are now experiencing, sacrificing one's job security for integrity is a daunting path. May we all come through it stronger.
https://quillette.com/2021/11/20/the-vanishing-of-peng-shuai/
Bari - I have read you many times and appreciated your positions for what they were - your thoughts of how the world is and should be. Many times we agreed and sometimes we did not. Just came across this piece here (https://www.commentary.org/articles/bari-weiss/resist-woke-revolution/) for the first time and decided that I need to financially contribute to your continued effort to challenge us to assume a greater role in the midst of this turmoil. Thanks to you I am now looking forward to and not shirking from this challenge!
While watching Kennedy’s questioning of Omarova, my first reaction was: why focus so intently on whether or not she had ‘resigned’ from a communist youth group from decades ago and not drill down on her recent statements to assess whether or not she still adheres to that ideology? I’m not defending her membership in said group per se, I’m just viewing it through the lens that joining said group may or may not have been considered a cultural norm in the former USSR. It’s her recent statements that make me question her suitability for this position, such as expressing a desire to bankrupt oil and coal companies to further a ‘green’ agenda. I don’t really care where she was born or what ethnicity she is. I found her response more deflective than elegant. She can’t help where she was born, but she CAN help what she now believes. She didn’t convince me at all that she had left that ideology behind her, or that she wouldn’t be guided by that ideology if appointed as Comptroller.
Re Beto: I disagree that he’s hot. I do agree that he is indeed a strange man. The fact that he wrote the following passage speaks volumes (regardless of any subsequent remorse on his part):
“One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams,” he wrote, according to Reuters. “As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.” (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/15/orourke-not-proud-writing-1223903)
Seriously, wtf?!!!!!!
The problem with Saule Omarova isn’t the place of her birth but the fact that she retains many of the odious, authoritarian ideas associated with the place of her birth. In short, she’s a leftie nut case—and our absurd president wants to make her Comptroller of the Currency.
It is true that for some reasons (but definitely not because of her commitment to the communist ideology; the feature is more closely aligned with her Middle Asia origin) Saule Omarova is expected to be an eager proponent of leftists approach, according which the (enlightened!) elite is free to make decisions on the life of society, and the rest of the people are entitled to follow the orders. Her tools are suggested to be economical and financial tools, OK.
But what’s about CRT, about “progressivism”, and the related theories? These theories actually have the same goal, just using other tools. As the matter of fact, the self-proclaimed “moral elite” is attempting to determine, is your attitude or views (even being a private comments) “proper from the moral point”, or you should be humiliated and even punished.
There is no difference between the financing of the projects, which the ruling elite find “good and proper”, and the banishment of the company board members, who are promoting the projects, which the elite don’t approve (under the inventing and unrelated pretexts, like “it was found that the grand-grandfather of some person was a slave owner”).
All ends meet, game recognizes game, etc.
Do tell, what are these "odious, authoritarian ideas associated with the place of her birth." Or is your comment simply intellectual laziness?
I suggest you look up Omarova's proposal for the nationalization of America's banking system, "The People's Ledger." It lays out (her own words here) "a blueprint for a comprehensive restructuring of the central bank balance sheet as the basis for redesigning the core architecture of modern finance. Focusing on the U.S. Federal Reserve System (the Fed), the Article outlines a series of structural reforms that would radically redefine the role of a central bank as the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a democratic economy." In plain language, she proposes turning the Fed into the all-powerful allocator of financial resources, supposedly into the most productive uses. Sounds kind of like the central planners of the late, unlamented USSR, eh? If you're not too intellectually lazy yourself, you might take a look at the article in which she elaborates this lunatic notion.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715735
In the spirit of Bari Weiss’s liberalism, Saule T. Omarova wrote an academic paper proposing changes to the monetary system to make it more democratic and address the digitalization of currency. It was a scholarly piece written for scholars to explore ideas. She has put forward for consideration and discussion, in her own words: “This Article resets the debate and offers a holistic, integrative approach to institutional change. It advocates comprehensive reform of the structure and function of the central bank’s balance sheet as the basis for redesigning the core architecture of modern finance.”
“Deliberately ambitious in scope and substance, this proposal defines the frontier of reform possibilities and throws into sharp relief what is really at stake in this process.”
Two correlate her proposals with; “Sounds kind of like the central planners of the late, unlamented USSR, eh?” Is the height of intellectual laziness, it is apparent that you didn’t read her introduction to the piece; if you had, you wouldn’t have made the USSR reference.
https://vanderbiltlawreview.org/lawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/278/2021/10/The-Peoples-Ledger-2.pdf
Omarova’s proposal to “democratize” the US monetary system boils down to a centralization of authority in the (unelected) Federal Reserve Bank—hence my reference to Soviet-style economic planning. Or to put it another way, a cabal of experts would decide what is financially “democratic.” That’s the essence of her “holistic, integrative approach.” Gosh, what could possibly go wrong there?
FYI, I did read the abstract—which is best characterized as word salad.
I don't pretend to be Gilgamesh but I am familiar (a bit) with the Central Asia mentality. The Western approach to the social issues is not the only possible; we like this approach and (moreover!) we believe that it is the best in a long run. OK. But others also exist. The ideas are odious only for the "western ears", so Tomas is a little... over emotional at this point, but the approach is definitely authoritarian.
I am not going to waste electrons explaining fine details about Kazakh clans (zhuz), about their understanding of society (no meritocracy but subordination), etc. Just open GOOGLE and read a bit about organization of the state, "elections" and social life in modern Kazakhstan; sorry - most of these materials are in Russian, Kazakhstan is - amusingly! - mostly Russian-speaking country, a large (about 20%) Russian minority and most of educated Kazakhs are well fluent in Russian (and not so fluent in Kazakh!).
Just to make things clear, the land of Omarova's birth was the USSR—whose approach to "social issues" can, I think, be characterized as odious.
Actually, what you call Russian Empire (and then USSR) doesn’t differ enough from British Empire. Just don’t be confused by the fact that it takes to travel over the sea to get to India, whereas Kazakhstan can be reached from Moscow and St. Petersburg by the ground. You know that India fully came under the suzerainty of Britain in 1857, and Kazakhstan came under the suzerainty of Russia in 1867… Now, would you refer to the “typical British mentality” discussing the political views of Mahatma Gandhi (born in 1869)?
Regarding “odious”… Frankly, it is not comfortable for me to challenge you because also I dislike this approach a lot (I am well aware about all aspects of these quasi-communist, quasi-Middle Asia approaches). Nevertheless, “Plato is my friend; Aristotle is my friend, but my greatest friend is truth”. Everything should be considered in the historical context, or we will shortly find ourselves in position of blaming Washington for being slave owner and charging Jefferson for failure to maintain “the diversity” of his government.
Omarova's approach to "social issues” may be somehow applicable in some societies a hundred years ago, but now and here (in US) this is a tool for grabbing the power on the expense of destroying our country and society (in some way similar to the fueling of anti-Semitic drive in Weimar Germany).
Oh, for crying out loud. Omarova’s ideological orientation has nothing to do with her ethnicity. She’s a product of the deservedly defunct Soviet system, and though she left that country, she didn’t shed the dogma that had been drilled into her. Omarova has rhapsodized about the “gender equity” that existed, she claims, in the USSR—as if such a term means anything at all in the context of of totalitarian police state.
Oh, and by the way, it so happens that a certain well-known leader of the USSR, J.V. Stalin, was not a Russian but a Georgian. So was his secret police chief, Beria. On the other hand, I don’t recall that an Indian ever served as Britain’s prime minister in the days of the Raj…
Yes, Ganhdy never was a British statesman; this is exactly what I want to say. He was not because (last but not least!) he didn’t have British mentality despite of being born in British Empire. At the same time, Sonia Ganhdy (with her western Italian mentality) was an Indian leader. How it comes? That’s simple, India was (and is now) in transition to the new age! The leader with Western mentality was in demand!
You are right, not ethnicity, not DNA but the place where she grew up (parents, neighbors, etc.); should I refer you to Kim novel by Kipling? It is very good that you are so aware about USSR history, I can even add more names of Stalin's top police and security people of Georgian origin, such as Kobulov, Dekanozov, etc.
Whereas the Marx ideas are “international”, the particular details of the “state design” are closely related to the elite mentality and habits, and these details are very substantial for the people. I dare to state that a particular state model of the USSR was significantly related to the fact that a good chunk its elite in 30-40th originated from the eastern areas (Georgia particularly). See Marxist Yugoslavia to compare with…
Reading your analyses, which are highly informed and reasonably constructed, remind me of what an academician once said to me, in all sincerity, during a discussion about differences between populations: "after you eliminate all the variables, the two groups are the same".
Whereas this sounds a bit tautologically, actually you are 101% correct!
I'm sorry that happened to you and I'm sure it sucks when you're forced into such a position that creates the kind of internal conflict between what you view as being morally right and what is in the best interests of your career. I'm sure NYT was somewhere you long since dreamed of being a journalist for and I can imagine that the assignment was one you were very excited to receive and one you justifiably saw as a potential breakthrough moment in your life and career. I'm not surprised this happened to you though and it's equally unsurprising that they tossed you aside like an afterthought once you did what you should have done. Maybe if you had done what they wanted you to do you would be in a much different position today but that would come at a a cost to your longstanding credibility that you would have to be comfortable living with. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for what you did and I really wish there were more journalists out there who took the role your profession plays in our democracy as serious as you clearly do. The entire Russia Collusion Hoax may have been manufactured by a few amateur communications people on a flailing presidential campaign but the real damage was done by the selfish, unprofessional and deceptive actions taken by countless people in your profession. To become a good journalist requires some of the same traits that makes good attorneys and good politicians. You need to have an unbreakable level of confidence in your own capabilities and also have enough of an ego to take the kinds of risk that give the needed boost along the journey to reach career success. This is a healthy kind of an ego though and is one that doesn't cloud your judgment or suppress the intelligence that allowed you to be in the position to succeed in the first place. It also requires a strong commitment to integrity and an understanding that no matter how attractive the short term benefits may appear, unethical conduct as a means to get ahead will limit just how success you can reach in your profession. The answer won't ever be found in asserting personal interests ahead of professional ethics no matter how far you look. Success takes time, it takes patience and it takes sacrifice. Even with that many people are never successful in their careers because it just wasn't meant to be. I hope that's not the case for you though and I really wish that you are rewarded for what you did today by enjoying the future gifts that comes from bucking the trend of media disinformation and having personal integrity mean something to you than the materialistic rewards of doing the dirty work of others. You're obviously very intelligent and you have the right mixture of fighting spirit and pragmatism that makes me very confident that great things will be heard from you in journalism.
In order for that to happen there finally needs to be some kind of action taken that forces extensive reform throughout the American Media Institution. Enough is enough already. I'm not some kind of an idealist who has been surprised to learn that our so-called unbiased mainstream media are actually corrupt propagandists for the DNC and divisive special interests. I was the target of a hit job coordinated between local Democrats and their incestuous slaves in the media because of the threat I posed to the monopoly of power that had been in place for generations so I know just how blatantly dishonest and uncaring towards the truth or the damage the media can cause people when they abuse the power that was generously given them when our Founders envisioned their role as the Fourth Estate of American Democacy. Like everyone else I suffered through the Russia Hoax for over two years and have been waiting for accountability to be had now that it has been proven the entire scandal was a coordinated attempt between Democrats and the media to delegitimize a lawfully elected president. We all watched as the media ran cover for House Democrats as Nancy Pelosi essentially pissed all over the US Constitution in bringing articles of impeachment against a president for nothing resembling a high crime or misdemeanor. Anyone held accountable? Then there was the coordinated effort that took place to censor potentially negative information about Democrats and Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election which served as part of the much bigger and more elaborate four year plan the media was very much an active participant in to make sure Trump would not win a second term in office. They gaslighted us almost daily each time a compliant democratic governor in a swing state would unilaterally mandate extensive and unwarranted overhauls to state election laws through executive action and helped frame the current standard that even the slightest objection to these changes are veiled attempts to promote racist voter suppression as a means to maintain the so-called power and privilege of white supremacy in American politics and society. It has been the epitome of intellectually dishonest gaslighting and along the way they have intentionally defamed countless innocent people only to defiantly and arrogantly claim immunity from their inaccurate and delusional interpretation of NYT v. Sullivan. Again, have there been consequences?
Of course I am asking that rhetorically as I know there haven't been any and I am at the point where I don't think we will ever see any come down ever. What we have seen has been Pulitzers, lucrative book deals and six figure speaking tours dished out to the worst of the worst Provocateurs of defamation and disinformation the media has to offer. What message does that send the rest of the profession? It certainly isn't a good one when, as I said before, a certain level of an abrasive ego is needed if you want to succeed in the media world. The impending destruction Democrats will face next November will only ratchet things up a couple hundred degrees and by the time we are in the heat of the 2024 campaign season things will be so out of control that there won't be a single honest and trustworthy journalist out there as they all strive to be the next 20-something Pulitzer winner that comes from breaking the next pretend GOP act of treason. If the media were vulnerable to being mislead by their little peckers in 2020 then 2024 will be an absolute disaster. Something needs to be done but I am very pessimistic I will see that.
I don’t think there are more than a handful of honest and trustworthy journos out there anyway and haven’t been for a long time.
And you might want to break your next screed into easier to read paragraphs. Less is more.
Inflation is THE MOST regressive tax there is... just because someone is an over educated ivy league elitist brat totally isolated from the unwashed doesn't mean they are "smart people"... never underestimate the obtuse cruelty of the zoom enabled anointed to twist reality into their preferred vision... If Cowen thinks the Fed's actions over the past 20 years is in any way Republican or Democrat then he's not paying attention...both parties have encouraged the Fed to open the spigots for them and their friends on Wallstreet to rape and pilage in fine Boomer fashion.
You deserved to lose that year salivating over Russiagate like a good little mindless MSM consumer... never forget it and there is a chance for your soul...
Suale Omarova's philosophy is for complete government control over people's money... She doesn't believe in the private banking system... he is right to be confused as to whether she is a communist based on her past comments... but like many he feels the need to put on a show in front of the cameras and so he looks like a jackass.
See Matt Taibbi's piece on the unmitigated shit journalism surrounding the Rittenhouse case... at some point it will require self immolation on the part of journalists to win back even an ounce of respect from the common man...
As for ivermectin... it is DIRT CHEAP, has a better safety profile then even ANY over the counter cold medicine, has been given over 5 BILLION doses worldwide and Doctors who actually treat covid patients as opposed to merely talking about it say that it is helpful in a multi pronged treatment regiment...it is a proven Cl-3 protease inhibitor (FYI that's the modality of action for the new pharma miracle pill at over $800 a course) ...so why not give it to everybody on the planet??? Because of the MSM and their corporate overlords...see above about gasoline and matches...
Jared1 min ago
With all due respect regarding Omarova: she gave a witty but ultimately deflecting response to what are truly some communist-like state economic policies she’s inclined to pursue. Very unamerican. I would recommend reading the WSJ’s editorial on her on 11/15/21.
I didn’t watch her hearing, maybe the Senator very well deserves to be called out. But she’s not innocent in the matter. How I see it. I like your news roundup, thanks!
Wow. It's even worse than I thought earlier today.
It turns out Nellie's account of this exchange between Sen. Kennedy and Omarova is completely dishonest, or recklessly careless, or maybe incompetent. She misrepresents it both in sequence and in context.
Here's Nellie's account:
[Sen. Kennedy said] “You used to be a member of a group called The Young Communists. . . . I don’t know whether to call you professor or comrade.” Her elegant (and American) response: “I could not choose where I was born.”
Sounds like the "choose where I was born" comment was in response to the "professor or comrade" comment, right? Or at a minimum, that the "professor or comrade" comment preceded it.
NOT AT ALL!
Turns out, the "choose where I was born" comment came long BEFORE the "professor or comrade" comment. Nellie *deliberately* edited the exchange deceitfully. (Did she used to work at CBS or MSNBC??)
Furthermore, the context of Omarova's "choose where I was born" comment related to her point that she was a part of the Communist organization in question *solely* because she was born in the Soviet Union, as (according to her) "Everybody in that country was a member of the Komsomol, which was the Communist Youth organization".
It was anything BUT an "elegant (and American) response". And Nellie provided it out of sequence and out of context.
Lovely work.
Audio/video exchange here:
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618
And here, too:
https://twitter.com/TrumpJew2/status/1461372845611786240
Story and much of the transcript here:
https://bit.ly/3oJ5alh
This Republican, Veteran, and private sector business owner thanks you for your honesty and courage. It can't be easy going up against a tsunami of politically-inspired chicanery.
The fiscal side effect of a pandemic with just-in-time delivery is to throw the supply chain into disarray.
"The direct inflationary effect of bottlenecks will likely be limited after relative prices have adjusted. However, sustained inflationary pressures could emerge if bottlenecks persist long enough to trigger an upward shift in wage growth and inflation expectations."
https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull48.htm?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20211119&instance_id=45812&nl=paul-krugman®i_id=55636156&segment_id=74850&te=1&user_id=a5f5fc5d16866a0c0ae965c90a5e293d
Well done, ladies. Thank you for another digest. Hope you see passed the increasingly unhelpful and politically biased feedback in the comments these days to those of is who still appreciate your striving for open-minded journalism, even when our opinions disagree. Have a good Thanksgiving week!
All the wailing about how dishonest the media is, and then we have this; "If you lived in those neighborhoods on fire, you were not supposed to get an extinguisher. The proper response — the only acceptable response — was to see the brick and mortar torn down, to watch the fires burn, and to say: thank you." Nellie Bowles makes the above bizarre hyperbolic statement that could be used to exemplify dishonest media!
With respect, I thought this sentence was absolutely scathing — people who “lived above the shop” were put in physical danger when businesses were torched, yet Good Samaritans who tried to douse the flames were also threatened with harm.
Excellent writing, Nellie.
You just made the concept of honest media beyond a moat point; you've made it meaningless by having different standards!
I have to express my frustration on this one. I, like many others, subscribed to Bari's Substack because I sought thoughtful, open-minded, independent thought -- an alternative to the mocking tone of unearned surety which characterizes most "mainstream" Borg media, very notably including the NYT.
This article, while ably written and touching on interesting topics, so clearly enacts most of what is wanting in the aforementioned Borg media that I feel compelled to point out a couple instances. This piece was truly disappointing. Some notes:
- Your understatement in the Kenosha piece is stunning. Quite obviously, per your story, the country's "paper of record" suppressed and purposefully distorted clearly newsworthy material to propagandize people into ignoring or underplaying massive and destructive national riots. This was done so as to mock and characterize as racist concern about these riots, in turn done so as to smear the president and his followers, in turn done so as to shape the election through politically-coordinated deception of the "democratic" populace the NYT aims to control. This is now being used to defame someone who went (perhaps stupidly) to put out these fires. It does not strike me as journalistically appropriate or honest to treat this prolonged and purposeful distortion as a matter of mild academic interest ("something odd") or social-justice pathos related to a handful of people because they were poor. This is deceitful and immoral propaganda that significantly affected national politics.
- Per your description of it, the Ivermectin piece referenced, which is claimed as "definitive," implicitly acknowledges that a large bulk of research on the pill suggests it works to sharply reduce covid infection and symptoms. The criticism is, instead, related to the mechanism by which it works in said studies. It states that IVM works *because of* a happenstance regional correlation (with deworming), not on its own, such that it wouldn't work in, say, the US. This is a tacit acknowledgement of a position that the elite journalistic class as a whole has insulted as conspiratorial for months: That there is clear evidence that this cheap generic has been effective in reducing covid infection and symptoms. Stunningly, after this implicit acknowledgement is made, Nellie offers no criticism or apology, and doesn't make anything explicit. I can only reach the conclusion that this article is deemed "definitive" for opportunistic reasons (consciously or subconsciously), because it is the first well-written piece that A) accepts (as one must) the *obvious evidence of efficacy* while B) maintaining the tone of smug dismissal about the drug. Of course, Scott Alexander may likely be right; he's a brilliant writer and thinker. What's noteworthy is the extraordinary implicit bias, smugness, and avoidance at play in this blurb. It's an exact carbon copy of how the mainstream press treats these subjects (see below).
- As many others have pointed out, your characterization of the Omarova interaction betrays an extraordinary bias and (willful?) lack of understanding of the candidate in question. This is combined with classic elite-media smugness, and played off as a sense of humor and even patriotism.
- You, and many other journalists, owe an enormous *apology* for ragging on (and failing to criticize) Russiagate despite an absolute lack of trustworthy evidence. The corporate press treated the story as absolute damning fact when it was, always, nothing of the kind. (I'm not as familiar with your work; at the very least, you didn't make the slightest attempt at skeptical criticism.) This is absolute, *election-stealing* journalistic malpractice. Journalists deprived the American people of the right to make an informed vote, by systematically lying to them and misrepresenting and overstating reality. American journalism -- really quite close to all of it -- has a moral obligation to apologize profusely, publicly, repeatedly, and with great self-flagellation. Instead, we get a self-absorbed throwaway joke about the time you wasted expending extraordinary bias towards the propagation of a massively distorting calculated lie.
Just a stunning lack of self-awareness on display here. The exact tone of clueless superiority that makes the NYT/Vox/etc so jarring.
*stands up and claps loudly* YES!