PowerLine -> Equifax: irresponsible and maybe worse – Victim of the Southern Poverty Law Center “SPLC”

Powerline John Hinderaker at HoaxAndChange

PowerLine -> Equifax: irresponsible and maybe worse – Victim of the Southern Poverty Law Center “SPLC”

 

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Daily Digest


  • Equifax: irresponsible and maybe worse
  • Chronicles of Sergio Dipp
  • Coates Versus Douglass
  • ESPN anchor rails against “white supremacist” Trump
  • Victim of the SPLC
Equifax: irresponsible and maybe worse

Posted: 12 Sep 2017 03:02 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

We haven’t written yet about the Equifax data breach. It is one of the worst, if not the worst, security breach of our personal information in history, the personal information of most U.S. adults having been obtained by cyber criminals. However, I had nothing of note to say about it. Stuff happens, I thought, and very bad stuff can happen in our digital age.

My view changed when I read an article in PJ Media by Phil Baker. According to Baker, this was the third time in two years that Equifax computers were hacked. The company thus had plenty of warning about the problem, yet failed adequately to deal with it.

In addition, says Baker, Equifax waited six weeks after discovering the theft of all of its data to inform anyone. This gave the thieves a head start, with ample time to package the data, go to the underground web, and sell it.

Baker also reports that three Equifax executives sold stock in the company during the period between the theft and the announcement of the theft. Equifax Chief Financial Officer John Gamble and president of U.S. information solutions Joseph Loughran collectively sold shares and exercised stock options totaling approximately $1.5 million on Aug. 1, just three days after the hack. Rodolfo Ploder, president of workforce solutions, sold approximately $250,000 worth of stock on Aug. 2.

The company claims the three had not yet been informed of the breach. Perhaps not, but the timing certainly raises suspicions. The matter ought to be investigated.

Baker’s article also contains advice on how what we should do to protect ourselves from the consequences of the Equifax breach. I’m not in a position to evaluate his advice, but I encourage you to read it.

  

Chronicles of Sergio Dipp

Posted: 12 Sep 2017 01:05 PM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

Someone at ESPN thought that Sergio Dipp was ready for prime time during the second of its two Monday Night Football contests last night. And who, you might ask even if you saw the game, is Sergio Dipp?

The Washington Post called on two reporters to explain: “He’s the young man who made a memorably awkward debut as a Monday Night Football sideline reporter when Mowins threw it to him in the first quarter for a quick note on [Denver Broncos coach Vance] Joseph.”

Dipp didn’t have much to say. What little he had to say he said “haltingly,” to borrow the Post’s description: “Folks, it’s a pleasure to be with you guys, here on the field, from up close, just watching Coach Vance Joseph from here, you watch him now on the screen. His diversity and his background are helping him a lot tonight. A quarterback at Colorado, a defensive back in the NFL, and here he is, having the time of his life this night, making his head coaching debut.”

Dipp is originally from Mexico. ESPN appeared to have deposited Dipp on the sideline for his own “diversity,” but he must have disappointed someone’s expectations. He disappeared from view after his tribute to Coach Joseph. The Post collects a number of funny tweets that called for more Dipp.

Back in his hotel room, Dipp answered the call. He served up more Dipp. He pulled himself together to record a lugubrious video touching on the themes of America, 9/11, immigration, and “minority” status. He concluded with the all-American call for a second chance. This, Mr. Dipp, is the country of second chances. On that much, we can all agree.

Thank you…

And God bless America.??✔️ pic.twitter.com/mYXwBNFB6g

— Sergio Dipp (@SergioADippW) September 12, 2017

Via Rush Limbaugh

  

Coates Versus Douglass

Posted: 12 Sep 2017 10:54 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

Ta-Nehesi Coates has a new essay out about Trump that is generating a lot of buzz, entitled “The First White President.” Here are a couple of excerpts about what he has to say about Trump:

He is preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He is ready and willing at any time during the first year of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he is an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of immigration. His arguments in furtherance of this policy have their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Donald Trump is not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. . . Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme.

Oh, wait a minute. That’s not Coates; that’s Frederick Douglass, speaking about Abraham Lincoln at the dedication of the Freedman’s Monument in Washington DC on April 14, 1876. I took the small liberty of changing the verb tenses, swapping out “immigration” for “slavery” in the fourth sentence, and swapping “Trump” for “Lincoln” in the last sentence. None of these changes alter the argument of the passage. In other words, we have here Douglass arguing that Lincoln is pre-eminently a “white president,” and not the first by any means.

Of course, if you read the whole of Douglass’s oration, he makes out the case of why Lincoln should be honored, and by extension why the country he led is good and just, despite its obvious failings and mistakes. By comparison, Douglass reveals Coates to be the superficial thinker that he is. Because of course many contemporary black thinkers—I suspect Coates is among them—believe Lincoln was a “white supremacist” pure and simple, no better or different than the Confederate leaders whose statues are being removed. A “Black Lives Matter” protest a couple years back featured signs proclaiming “Lincoln was a racist,” and demanding that Lincoln be removed from the five-dollar bill. This is not a brand new charge. Ebony magazine in 1968 published an article entitled “Was Lincoln a White Supremacist?” (Answer: yes.)

Let’s take in a bit more of Douglass:

Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States. . .

I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

I doubt Coates would ever concede any part of Douglass’s argument. Just as environmentalists delight in every apocalyptic claim that comes along, Coates delights in the bitterness that descends from the view that America’s failings define the totality of America’s history and meaning. You might call it a different kind of supremacy.

NB: See Damon Linker’s dissent about Coates here.

  

ESPN anchor rails against “white supremacist” Trump

Posted: 12 Sep 2017 09:21 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

ESPN, the world-wide leader in leftist bulls**t, is in deep financial trouble. The main cause appears to be the loss of cable subscribers due to a changing media landscape. ESPN’s vast overpayment for products like the NBA has also contributed.

In addition, the network’s injection of left-wing politics into its treatment of sports has been a major turn off for many of us. As Linda Cohn, who has been with ESPN for 25 years, says, viewer “distaste” with its political slant “definitely” accounts for some of the network’s woes.

ESPN has responded with deep layoffs, but not by backing away from its overt leftism. The layoffs mainly hit those who provided in-depth analysis of games, teams, and players. The race-mongers and other “big picture” sports and society poseurs kept their jobs, in some cases with expanded roles.

In April of this year, ESPN did, however, issue guidelines to its employees regarding the discussion of politics. While not discouraging the discussion of politics in the context of “commentary,” the guidelines state: “Original news reports should not include statements of support, opposition or partisanship related to any social issue, political position, candidate or office holder.”

The guidelines also state:

Writers, reporters, producers and editors directly involved in ‘hard’ news reporting, investigative or enterprise assignments and related coverage should refrain in any public-facing forum from taking positions on political or social issues, candidates or office holders.

(Emphasis added)

ESPN stipulated that this directive applies to “ESPN, Twitter, Facebook and other media.”

This brings us to the case of Jamele Hill. She anchors the incarnation of “Sports Center” that airs at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Ms. Hill. If I’m watching television at that hour, I’m watching “Special Report.”

Yesterday, September 11, Hill went on a Twitter rant. She declared that “Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.”

Hill added, “The height of white privilege is being able to ✌?ignore✌?his white supremacy, because it’s of no threat to you. Well, it’s a threat to me.” Later, in seeming contradiction to this statement, she said: “Donald Trump is a bigot. Glad you could live with voting for him. I couldn’t, because I cared about more than just myself.”

On and on it went, without anything that might pass for genuine argument. Hill provided no evidence or analysis. This tweet was typical: “Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime. His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period.”

If I understand ESPN’s new guidelines correctly, Hill has blatantly violated them. She certainly has “taken positions” (even if just through name-calling) in a “public-facing forum” on an “office holder.”

Should she be fired? I never like to see employees punished for what they say on their own dime. I imagine, though, that Hill’s tirade threatens viewership. Thus, it seems to me that ESPN needs to take some form of corrective action.

It also seems to me that if conservative ESPN employee had attacked President Obama, he or she would have been fired instantly. As sports media critic Clay Travis says, “ESPN has fired conservatives for less than [Jamele Hill] Tweeted about Trump tonight.”

  

Victim of the SPLC

Posted: 12 Sep 2017 06:08 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

I have been calling the ludicrously misnamed Southern Poverty Law Center a wealthy left-wing hate cult. The organization now serves as a handmaiden to forces of the left as they seek to stigmatize honourable conservatives and confine our public discourse to approved channels. Most recently, Minnesota Senator Al Franken showed how it’s done in his crude McCarthyite assault on Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination to the Seventh Circuit last week.

I didn’t realize that I was following in the footsteps of former Vanderbilt political science professor Carol Swain, who called the SPLC’s number in a post she wrote about it for the Huffington Post in September 2009. Professor Swain concluded the post: “Rather than monitoring hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become one.”

This could not stand. In today’s Wall Street Journal Professor Swain tells the rest of the story:

The SPLC’s retaliation was vicious and effective. On Oct. 17, 2009, my photo appeared on the front page of my local newspaper, the Tennessean, with the headline “ Carol Swain is an apologist for white supremacists.” That was a quote from Mark Potok, at the time the SPLC’s national spokesman. The context for Mr. Potok’s attack was a review I gave for a film titled “A Conversation About Race.” I endorsed it for classroom use because it offered a perspective on race rarely encountered on university campuses. Mr. Potok argued that the filmmaker was a bigot. I felt then and now that the perspective needed to be heard.

This negative article was featured on the front pages of several newspapers and it went viral, especially in black media outlets. The attacks did not subside until this newspaper’s website published a lengthy article titled “In Defense of Carol Swain.”

Being targeted by the SPLC has had a lasting impact on my life and career. Offers from other universities ended and speaking opportunities declined. Once you’ve been smeared in this way, mainstream news outlets are less likely to cite you as an expert of any kind.

Professor Swain knows she is in good company:

[T]oday I wear the SPLC’s mud as a badge of honor because I know I am in the company of many good men and women who have been similarly vilified for standing for righteousness and truth. Other SPLC targets have included Ben Carson (who eventually received an apology and retraction), Somali refugee Ayaan Hirsi Ali, terrorism expert Steve Emerson, political scientist Guenter Lewy (who successfully sued the SPLC), attorney Robert Muise, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Princeton professor Robert P. George. The SPLC has tagged Mr. George, a devout Catholic intellectual, as “anti-LGBT.”

The SPLC seems to have taken its inspiration from 1984. In the run-up to the regime fueled by the Two Minutes Hate, the SPLC organizes the animus fueling the left-wing fascists who aim to bring it on and squelch the rest of us.

  

Leave a Reply