Reparations, Bud Light, Tucker, And The 2020 End Of The World

Recall that after the 2020 election, I compared the Democrat situation to the problem of apocalyptic cultists who believed the world was about to end on a date certain. I said that if I knew the world was going to end, my reaction would be to run up my credit cards in the final month so that I could buy everything I wanted and enjoy it before the big asteroid hit the planet, but since the world would end on that date, I'd never have to pay anything back.

As I saw it then, the problem for the Democrats was that they'd won a narrow electoral victory in November, but they'd have to set the results in stone before another election took place in 2022 -- or in oher words, they were running up the credit cards with promises to pay the bills and assuming the world would end before they came due. The difficulty was the world didn't end, as it has always tended not to, and the 2022 election happened anyhow.

The Democrats lost in 2022 by less than some optimistic predictions, but they lost by enough that the bills still went out. One of the first 2020 charges that's had to be paid has been Gavin Newsom's promise of reparations for slavery in California, where there was never slavery. The California Reparations Task Force

The California Reparations Task Force is a non-regulatory state agency in California established by California Assembly Bill 3121 in 2020 to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans, especially those who are descendants of persons enslaved in the United States. It was created to deal with systemic racism against African Americans resulting from slavery's enduring legacy.

This was done in the wake of the George Floyd riots that summer in order to appease the rioters on one hand, but on the other and more importantly to salve the consciences of the wealthy California one percent and the allied gentry in their affluent enclaves. Their problem was less to stop the riots, which went on notwithstanding, but more to assuage their own consciences, since riots in the ghettos and working class areas would never reach Marin County or the Hollywood Hills.

And this would work until the world didn't end and the bills came due, and the statements began to arrive in the mail this past weekend when, as I noted the other day, the Reparations Task Force issued its report and intimated without quite spelling things out that the total amount due would fall in the neighborhood of $800 billion in order to pay up to over $1 million to each eligible resident. Gov Newsom, whose idea was to run up the credit cards in the first place, has been quick to respond:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom declined to endorse the cash payments – which could reach as high as $1.2 million for a single recipient – recommended by his reparations task force, telling Fox News Digital that dealing with the legacy of slavery "is about much more than cash payments."

"The Reparations Task Force’s independent findings and recommendations are a milestone in our bipartisan effort to advance justice and promote healing. This has been an important process, and we should continue to work as a nation to reconcile our original sin of slavery and understand how that history has shaped our country," Newsom said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

In other words, even though we promised African-Americans reparations, we didn't mean it that way. We just meant we'd keep saying the same empty words, but nothing's really going to change. OK?

This goes back to what I've been saying all along, that the current political alignment is primarily an alliance between the Ivy League wealthy, the magagerial, academic, media, and bureaucratic gentry, and Marx's Lumpenproletariat, the petty criminal class, which has expanded somewhat to include the homeless and radical sexual deviants like transsexuals (whose interests are not the same as the traditionally same-sex attracted).

The problem for the wealthy and the gentry is that the Lumpenproletariat, as Marx understood, are not reliable allies, while the traditional New Deal alliance has lost groups like the working class and Catholics, who are politically reliable, or at least had been until the wealthy and the gentry reneged on their part of the deal. Meanwhile, the one percent and the gentry never intended to follow through more than they have with the lumpenproles, who for the moment have received leniency on petty crime, homelessness, and drug addiction, but will not receive any new money to subsidize them.

The Bud Light problem, as I see things, is simply another manifestation of the same dilemma for the wealthy and the allied gentry. The Bud Light marketing VP, Alissa Heinerscheid, a member of the Ivy League wealthy essentially masqueading as managerial gentry, implemented a policy of appeasing the extended Lumpenproletariat by handsomely paying and privileging Dylan Mulvaney, a member of the media gentry masquerading as a transsexual lumpenprole.

This patently phony srrangement collapsed just about instantly, beyond even the false dialectic behind it -- Mulvaney was doubly phony, since he was neither an actual woman nor, as commentators have begun to point out, an authentic transsexual. He was and is a professional actor, an entitled member of the media gentry who, seeing his age catch up with him in traditional roles, hoped to jumpstart his acting career as a transsexual, but his surgery will never go beyond his face.

This hasn't sold with anyone; the collapse of his career, Heinerscheid's, the Bud Light brand, and possibly Anheuser's corporate image, have all led to universal schadenfreude.

The same thing is taking place with Tucker Carlson. Again, I think it's a symptom of how the upper class and gentry, the Murdochs and the Fox executive suite, ran up charges expecting the world to end before they came due. On one hand, they created a monster in Tucker Carlson, who was able to supplant the aging and more corporate-correct anchors Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity with a younger look slightly more aligned with a new-generation working and middle class audience who, however, never quite trusted Fox.

Carlson is currently alleging through his attorneys that Fox berayed an implicit understanding that it would not terminate him as part of any Dominion settlement.

Carlson lawyer, Bryan Freedman, wrote to Fox News executives Viet Dinh and Irena Briganti that Fox News employees, including “Rupert Murdoch himself,” broke promises to Carlson “intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth,” according to Axios.

. . . The letter also reportedly alleges the network broke promises not to settle with Dominion Voting Systems “in a way which would indicate wrongdoing” on the part of Carlson and not to take any actions in a settlement that would harm his reputation.

Two sources told Axios that Carlson was told by a member of the Fox News board that he was taken off the air as part of a Dominion settlement.

This is simply another example of the wealthy class -- the Murdochs -- and their allied gentry -- the Fox executive suite -- making credit card charges expecting the world to end before the bills arrive, though even here, things aren't what they seem. Carlson is also a member of a wealthy family who can afford a five-star lifestyle even without a job in the media gentry, while his hairpiece, for-the-camera cosmetics, and plastic surgery give a misleading impression of fresh-faced youth.

But for now, unlike Ms Heinerscheid, Gov Newsom, Bud Light, Anheuser, the Murdochs, and Fox, he's smart enough to be on the winning side of a battle of appearances -- in other words, appearing to be a reliable ally of the reliable alliance, the working and middle classes, who are currently quite upset with the range of betrayals they see from the wealthy and the gentry, who've foolishly aligned themselves with the least reliable factions anywhere, the Lumpenproletariat. This can't last.

Dershowitz On The Jordan Neely Chokehold

Alan Dershowitz has an interesting commentary on the Jordan Neely episode, wherein a mentally unstable homeless man who was behaving bizarrely and apparently threatening New York subway riders was killed after a former Marine, assisted by other passengers, placed him in a chokehold with the intent of holding him for police. The question he asks, "Should ex marine be charged for killing subway screamer?" he answers, somewhat predictably, with, "it depends."

But he makes several other remarks that I think reflect his current wider views on society. At about 7:00, he says

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, if the [ex-Marine] had been black and the homless person had been white, would AOC be saying anything? Of course not! Well, maybe she would be saying something, but not what she said about this case. This is all about race, the fact that the victim in this case was African-American and that the alleged perpetrator is white changes everything. That's why there are demonstrations in the street . . . We have become in this country, I hate to use this term, we are now a systematically, systemically racist country.

We were a systemically racist country in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, until Brown v Board of Education. We were systemically anti-black. We were systemically antisemitic. We were systemically anti-Catholic. We were systemically anti-gay. . . . Then from, say, '54 to the beginning of this centuiry, we became not a systemically racist country, we became a country with pockets of racism, but the systems were not systemically focused on race to the advangtage of minorities. But now in the last 20 years, maybe the last ten years, certainly since the death of Goerge Floyd, we have once again become a systemically racist country, everything is seen through the eyes of race.

I find myself agreeing with Dershowitz about 80% of the time, and he's up front about his opinions, which align with the center-left of the early to mid 1960s. This is the case here. But contra Dershowitz, here were cases equivalent to George Floyd in the 1990s, for instance the 1992 Rodney King riots or the somewhat converse case of OJ Simpson's acquittal for murder in 1995 by a predominantly African-American jury. Los Angeles was never Mayberry, and it's misleading to suggest it, or the rest of the country, ever was.

As well, "gay" is not a racial issue. Morally, it's a matter of conduct, which people of any race can engage in. In addition, communities are entitled to regulate that conduct if, for instance, it takes place in public or if it affects the public's ability to enjoy public facilities like parks or rest rooms. The question of how communities can regulate other aspects of same-sex attraction, like drag shows in schools or drag queen story hours, remains open and legitimate, and it's also separate from the question of transgenderism, to which significant factions of the same-sex attracted object. None of this is strictly speaking racist.

Dershowitz touches breifly on another issue, the fact that so far, protests over the Jordan Neely death have been more limited than those over the George Floyd killing, and this illustrates a point Dershowitz seems to miss: Neely and Floyd were both African-American, but the issue is less clear than that. Both also had lengthy criminal records, and both died in the process of behavior that, if not directly criminal, was nevertheless associated with a petty criminal lifestyle.

In other words, they were members of Marx's Lumpenproletariat, the petty criminal underclass. The social attitudes that led to widespread protests over the Rodney King and George Floyd episodes were based on a tendency to conflate race with the Lumpenproletariat and to insist that enforcement of laws against petty crime is racist simply because some, though certainly not all, members of the petty criminal underclass are black. It's possible that especially since Neely was said to be acting in a way that threatened other people and the ex-Marine was not a police officer, it's been harder to whip the public into a frenzy over the case, which strikes me as a good sign.

Nor is Dershowitz especially clear on just what sort of racism we're dealing with post-George Floyd: it's specifically anti-white. For instance,

A Denver councilwoman has sparked fierce debate after suggesting that white-owned businesses pay additional tax, which would be given in reparations to the owners of minority-owned businesses.

Candi CdeBaca, a 37-year-old Democratic Socialist, told a business forum in Denver on Thursday that more needed to be done to provide reparations.

This is just another version of the much more ambitious proposal to pay reparations for slavery in California, under the assumption that even if whites in the state never owned slaves, they were nevertheless responsible for widespread discrimination against blacks.

Dershowitz is also insufficiently specific on the recent manifestations of antisemitism and anti-Catholicism: Observant Catholics and Jews both needed to bring suits against a number of government agencies for imposing discriminatory regulations on houses of worship during the COVID panic. The FBI has more recently been accused of conducting infiltration ooperations against conservative Catholics.

My own view is that ongoing political developments give cause for optimism, but these are largely connected with the resurgent MAGA movement, over which Dershowitz is at best ambivalent. Well, there was a lot to like about the center left of the early 1960s, but it's important to recognize that it also did a lot to put us where we are now. I'm not sure if Dershowitz fully recognizes that.

California Proposal For Slavery Reparations

This has been a background newes item for some time, but a California panel has been studying the issue of reparations for slavery:

In October 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed Bill AB 3121 into law — creating the nation’s first ever task force to study and recommend reparations for slavery.

This past Saturday, it issued a predictable set of recommendations:

California's reparations task force voted Saturday to approve recommendations on how the state may compensate and apologize to Black residents for generations of harm caused by discriminatory policies.

The nine-member committee, which first convened nearly two years ago, gave final approval at a meeting in Oakland to a hefty list of proposals that now go to state lawmakers to consider for reparations legislation.

. . . Some estimates from economists have projected that the state could owe upwards of $800 billion, or more than 2.5 times its annual budget, in reparations to Black people.

California entered the Union in 1850 as a free state, so slavery was never legal here throughout its history as a US state. However, the panel determined that various other forms of discrimination made African-Americans eligible for reparations according to complicated formulas.

The panel's recommendation breaks payments down by types of historical discrimination. For instance, Black residents affected by redlining by banks would receive $3,366 for each year they lived in California from the early 1930s to the late 1970s, amounting to up to $148,099.

Similarly, Black residents could receive roughly $2,352 in compensation for over-policing and mass incarceration for each year they lived in California between 1970 and 2020. Those payments could amount to $115,260.

In total, from these and other payments included in the plan, a Black Californian who is 71 years old and has lived in California his entire life could receive up to $1.2 million, according to analysis from the New York Times.

For now, I want to leave questions of whether such reparations are moral or constitutional completely aside and consider the single issue of how the reparations would be financed. I've got to assume there would need to be some type of tax levy on California residents to pay for this, whatever the cost, even if as some claim the $800 billion estimate is too high, and it might be done for less.

One question would be who would have to pay whatever tax was imposed to pay reparations to African-Americans. Normally if the legislature imposes a tax, every taxpayer must pay it according to income. But if the tax is imposed as a reparation for injustices against African-Americans, why should African-Americans have to pay the tax? Isn't that unfair?

That means there would need to be a set of criteria that would entitle certain people identifiable as African-Americans not only to receive reparation payments, but also to exempt them from being taxed to pay for the reparations.

But then we have a whole separate question of what this could do to those who must pay the tax, which would be not just white people, but Asians and Latins. Wouldn't this be an enormous incentive to drive non-African-Americas out of the state? Such a tax would place a non-trivial burden on possibly 85% or more of the state's residents, which they could escape by simply moving away.

I have no idea where this is headed, but it's hard to avoid thinking the state's political establishment, including a Democrat supermajority in the legislature, is edging toward a proposal that would involve race-based payments, financed by a race-based tax on perhaps 85% of the state's residents. As far as I casn see, this would make the popular indignation against the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney partnership look nugatory.

Beyond that, advocates of such reparations are beginning to advocate "down payments" on such reparations even before ultimate means of financing them are determined. As a practical matter, this can be about the only serious way such a proposal could be implemented, since any concrete reparations proposal detailing the actual cost and tax impact would be impossible to sell, much less get through the courts. It would either drive a mass migration of population and businesses out of California, or it would cause a near-immediate upending of the current political arrangements in the state.

But so far, nobody seems to be paying much attention.

Pay No Attention To Those Epstein Conspiracy Theories!

I've always thought that Sam Bankman-Fried was basically Jeffrey Epstein 2.0 -- both had perfected the skill of convincing people they were something they weren't, for instance, good at math. Although he never had a four-year degree in anything, Epstein got his first job teaching math and physics at the exclusive Dalton School, whose headmaster had been William Barr's father, apparently because he convinced "Ace" Greenberg, CEO of Bear Stearns, that he was good at those things.

Epstein went on to build a highly successful career on smoke and mirrors -- even during his lifetime, there was occasional puzzlement over exactly how he made his money, and since his death, there still haven't been satisfactory answers. The one thing we're sure about is we can't be sure about anything. As of 2019, the consensus was something like this:

Now, a new book is attempting to fill in those chilling details - with journalist Dylan Howard and a team of investigative reporters spending years trawling through all of the Epstein evidence.

"Jeffrey Epstein grew up in blue-collar New York City, but soon found his way working on Wall Street - but he left job from job to job in controversy," Howard said.

"He seemingly never had a job but amassed a $600 million fortune.

. . . In his book, Howard speculates that Epstein may have also been an international spy.

"As part of our investigation, we spoke to Ari Ben-Menashe, who is a former Israeli spy," Howard said.

"He said, on the record, unequivocally, that Jeffrey Epstein was working for Israeli intelligence operations, the Mossad, and running a classic honey trap operation: that is, lure people inside, record their activities, and use it to blackmail them.

But here's my question. If Epstein was so good at convincing a Wall Street CEO that he was good at math, what assurance do we have that he hadn't also convinced the Mossad he was good at spying? Isn't a good spy just a spcailized sort of con artist in any case? A story from last year raises this same question without really meaning to:

Joe Rogan thinks that convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein may have been an agent of either the CIA or Israel’s Mossad who was part of a plot to collect sensitive information about the rich and powerful.

. . . “Well, he definitely donated some money to science,” Rogan said.

“You know, but I had a conversation with a scientist who didn’t buy into that Epstein stuff and wouldn’t go to the meetings and stuff like that.”

“And he said, he was really shocked at how little money he actually donated.”

“Interesting,” [his guest Whitney] Cummings said.

“He goes, ‘It wasn’t that much money.’ He goes, it was really like, ‘he was more than that,’” Rogan said.

“He was bringing them to parties. Like it was an intelligence operation,” Rogan said. “Whoever was running it, whether it was, the Mossad or whether it was CIA or whether it was a combination of both — it was an intelligence operation. They were bringing in people and compromising them.”

Wait a moment. Rogan's unidentified informant, a "scientist", whatever that is, is theorizing that Epstein lured other "scientists" into honey traps and blackmailed them in various ways, maybe to transmit the secret Coca-Cola formula, maybe to say vaccines would prevent you catching COVID, whatever. My first question is how, in this day and age, hanky-pank by some "scientist" will damage the guy. I mean, is he a closet (fill in the blank)? Who the heck cares? More than one recent President of the United States or a close relative has been up to one sort of funny business or another, and nobody cared. In some quarters, Dylan Mulvaney is a courageous pioneer. Honey traps are so 1950s.

In fact, Let's say Epstein was running honey traps. Let's take two examples of public figures who may have rubbed up against the Epstein operation the wrong way, Bill Gates and Alan Dershowitz. Let's say there were cameras secretly filming every last indiscretion, whatever may or may not have been alleged. Dershowitz fought his own allegation and was able to make it go away. Gates wound up divorcing his wife after a photo emerged of him and Epstein with a few other people, fully clothed, at a dinner.

Gates maintained that's as far as anything went, and no secret camera footage emerged to contradict him. Yeah, his wife divorced him, but it appears there was evidence he was propositioning female subordinates completely independent of anything Epstein may or may not have had on tape. I doubt if anything he may or may not have done under Epstein's auspices had much of anything to do with the divorce. In any case, Gates is as rich as he ever was.

We've had recent new evidence of Epstein meeting with Ehud Barak on a monthly basis:

Former Israeli Prime Minister and head of Israeli Military Intelligence Ehud Barak visited Jeffrey Epstein’s New York City apartment dozens of times between 2013 and 2017, documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal reveal.

“After Epstein was arrested in 2019, photos were published in newspapers showing Mr. Barak, the Israeli politician, entering Epstein’s townhouse in 2016,” WSJ reported.

“The documents provide new details about his scheduled meetings,” WSJ continued. “They show that between 2013 and 2017, Epstein planned at least three dozen meetings with Mr. Barak. They had appointments every month for 11 consecutive months starting in December 2015, the documents show.”

As well as meetings with a CIA director:

President Joe Biden's CIA director William Burns met multiple times with Jeffrey Epstein, years after the late financier was publicly accused of grooming underage girls for sex.

Burns met Epstein in Washington, D.C., and at Epstein's New York City townhouse in 2014, when the spymaster served as deputy secretary of state, according to the Wall Street Journal. A CIA spokeswoman said Burns met with Epstein for "general advice" on the financial services industry and for career advice on his transition out of government.

So a future CIA director went to Epstein for career advice. On one hand, I might well agree this isn't a bad idea -- consider that Epstein, without a four-year degree in anything, was able to get a job teaching math and physics at an upper-crust prep school and then parlay that into a phony Wall Street career. I'd probably take any financial advice he gave me seriously, too, considering he was able, by another account, to do things like convince people he'd donated big money to Harvard when he hadn't.

On the other hand, I wouldn't get on the Lolita Express or go near Ghislaine without wearing a hazmat suit, but that's not really the point. As a con artist, I'd listen to anything Epstein told me on the trade.

But whether a high-level intelligence expert would take anything Epstein, a highly successful con artist, told me at face value would say something about my own professional competence. What this all says about our current elites is troubling, but it doesn't have much to do with whether he had secret cameras in his town house. It just tells us how easily the gentry can be duped.

Inflection Point?

Yesterday, Mark Dice asked a question I haven't heard anyplace else: what is Bud Light going to do for Pride Month, which is coming up in June? Apparently they've had major campaigns in the past, as the artwork above reflects. Are they going to try to pull this off again?

They've already gone out of their way to put themselves between a rock and a hard place. For instance,

Though it didn’t come in June, Bud Light recently made a play for queer consumers when it produced a single can of the brand’s beer featuring trans TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney’s likeness. On April 1, Mulvaney made an Instagram post promoting Bud Light to her nearly 2 million followers. But the company’s response to the conservative backlash that followed suggests that its campaign didn’t come with any real commitment to inclusion.

. . . After what's been reported as a significant dip in sales, the company tucked tail and sought to distance itself from Mulvaney. Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth released a mealy-mouthed non-apology that said, “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people,” as conservative media dragged [marketing VP Alissa] Heinerscheid through the mud. Then came the news that Heinerscheid will be replaced.

The piece then takes the intriguing line that the right is a bunch of sickos for complaining about corporate glorification of sickos.

The Bud Light/Mulvaney controversy was the latest illustration of the right’s long and increasingly obsessive and weird fixation with transgender people. Consumers of conservative commentary have been conditioned into needing ever more trans-related outrage to feed their obsession, and Mulvaney’s beer campaign hit the sweet spot.

So wait a moment. The argument here seems to be that Bud Light was playing to conservatives to work them into yet another froth about trans people. Bud Light just fed their demand for more trans to outrage about. So, if Bud Light hadn't run its one-single-can-not-a-campaign featuring Mulvaney, the right wouldn't have flown into outrage. Thus the solution to the problem is seen in the disappearance of the problem, the Bud Light Mulvaney non-campaign was a big mistake. Or do I have this wrong?

Let's take another instance of what the writer here would apparently call pandering to the right-wing hunger for outrage against trans:

Women’s fashion brand Anthropologie faced major backlash from their fans following a campaign featuring a male model wearing women’s clothing.

Anthropologie posted a reel Wednesday on Instagram featuring a man with a shaved haircut dancing around while trying on a variety of women’s clothing. In one shot, the man twirled around in a skirt, exposing his underwear.

Backlash and negative comments were so extreme that the social media team turned off comments on the reel. However, furious fans simply started commenting on a different reel.

So Anthropologie is pandering to the right by giving them another opportunity for outrage. That does bring me to my perennial question: what problem is Anthropologie trying to solve? If the problem is not as many people want to buy their products as they'd like, so they want to run an ad that will make the products desirable, that pretty clearly can't be what they had in mind, since the right got outraged and promised never to buy their products.

More likely they were trying to signal to what they imagined was their existing customer base that Anthropologie was with the program over trans, and what better way than to have a trans guy dance around trying on their clothes? This would outrage the right yet again and make their existing customer base feel smug and virtuous, or something like that.

It ap;pears that the trans-affirming community is doubling down on the idea that Bud Light should be promoting trans even harder. Via the New York Post,

The attempt by Bud Light’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch, to distance itself from transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney puts the iconic American beer brand at risk of going “extinct,” according to an LGBTQ activist.

. . . “As far as marketing, I hope and think they realized that as a brand they will be extinct in a few years if they are not fully on the side of equality, as that is what the Gen Z consumer expects and demands,” [activist Stacey] Lentz told Newsweek.

. . . Last month, John Casey, senior editor of the LGBTQ magazine Advocate, published an op-ed calling for a boycott of Bud Light for “validating trans hate.”

So both the anti-trans right and the trans-affirming left are in agreement that Bud Light should be boycotted and go extinct, as presumably should any other corporation that validates trans hate, for example by running ads featuring guys dancing around in women's clothing or in bubble baths. Or do I have this wrong?

This still leaves open the question of what Bud Light, or any other corporate marketing department, will do for this June's Pride Month. Maybe they could announce that out of consideration for the whole LGBTQ+ community, this year they will pledge not to fuel trans hate by running ads featuring guys in drag or stuff like that. But I probably have this all wrong.

"This Was One Single Can"

It looks like after more than a month of the ongoing Dylan Mulvaney-Bud Light debacle, Anheuser and its parent have settled on a communications strategy: their market is overreacting. Per the Daily Wire:

Anheuser-Busch is trying to convince wholesalers that the Dylan Mulvaney controversy that has caused sales of Bud Light to plummet has been overblown.

The brewery sent a letter to wholesalers about the backlash to the trans-identifying influencer posting a TikTok video with a can of Bud Light that had Mulvaney’s face on it. In the video, Mulvaney celebrated 365 days of “being a woman.”

“This was one single can given to one social media influencer,” the letter declares. “It was not made for production or sale to the general public. This can is not a formal campaign or advertisement.”

It looks like the global conglomerate that owns Anheuser Busch has signed on to this version aS well. Per CNN:

Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Michel Doukeris addressed the Bud Light controversy in the company’s earnings call Thursday, saying it’s “too early to have a full view” of the impact of sponsoring an Instagram post by transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

“The Bud Light volume decline in the US over the first three weeks of April, as publicly reported, would represent around 1% of our overall global volumes for that period,” Doukeris said on the call. He focused attention on the company’s global reach, saying that Bud Light is just one beer within its portfolio and it’s not changing the company’s full-year outlook.

. . . He also reiterated that the Mulvaney post wasn’t an ad campaign, and blasted the “misinformation” surrounding the sponsored post. Last week, A-B met with distributors to help them “dispel potential retailer misconception” about the Mulvaney ad.

A single can with Mulvaney’s face was given to her and was not for sale to the general public and not part of a broad campaign.

It's worth noting that figuratively speaking, CNN in its commentary is standing at M Doukeris's shoulder and nodding its head, a little like Dr Birx diligently endorsing Dr Fauci's every word back in the day. The American public is being misled by social media misinformation. Bud Light never had a campaign, it was just one can and one influencer who took things a little too far. Since then, we've made some adjustments. That's all! They're making such a big deal of this!

Several things strike at this stage. First, I agree with the Romanian YouTuber who says the Bud Light case will be a subject of classes in marketing schools for decades to come. Second, I agree with commentators who say this isn't about beer. It's certainly about the whole trans moral panic, but it's also become an example of corporate gaslighting.

The whole "one single can" routine mimics the stereotypical domestic dispute, "All I did was send her one single text. You're making such a big deal of this!"

The problem is that someone at Bud Light thought it would be a good idea to put Dylan Mulvaney's face on a Bud Light can, which is corporate property, in pursuit of a corporate policy, and send it to Mulvaney pursuant to a corporate agreement whereby he would endorse Bud Light. Per The UK Daily Mail,

The specifics of how the can fiasco erupted remain under wraps. The latest letter claims the Mulvaney can was the brainchild of an outside agency.

It is the first time the brewing giant has addressed the backlash in detail, after they were hit with a major dip in Bud Light sales following the paid partnership.

. . . Despite the company's attempts to disavow the connection, the video Mulvaney, 26, posted of herself drinking Bud Light at the start of April 2023 used the hashtag #budlightpartner.

It implies that she was paid for the partnership, despite the brewing giants now claiming that the beer can and social media posts were not meant to be 'for production or sale to the general public.'

So for now, Anheuser's position with the public at large is basically, "We never said that, and it didn't happen that way." We'll have to see how long that lasts -- it took them over a month to come up with it. Their problem is that they started by buying trouble, taking a visible corporate line on an issue they didn't need to address, when they were marketing a commodity for which consumers could easily change their preference. You don't want Bud Light? Great, you can drink Coors Light instead.

It was a "boycott" that demanded no sacrifice. The traditional idea of a boycott, like the Montgomery, AL bus boycott of 1955-56, involves some type of sacrifice, however minimal -- the African-Americans who refused to ride the Montgomery buses had to walk instead. The American colonials who boycotted English tea had to do without. But boycotting Bud Light simply means drinking another brand of beer, not having to forego anything.

Worse, as Saul Alinsky said, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."

Anheuser set itself up for this, it's been going on for more than a month, the boycott is the easiest thing in the world to sustain, and the public is having great fun doing it. So far, Anheuser's response has been to try to gaslight the whole country. I'm not sure if this is something Anheuser can survive, but the issue isn't just beer.

More On Fox's Tucker Crisis

I never watched Tucker Carlson, I never fell for the fresh-faced preppie schtick, and the mod hairpiece always gave me a sense the guy was phony. I also have little sympathy for Fox, except to note they're in the entertainment business, and I sort of expect them to be competent at running that business, which at this point they don't seem to be.

The most recent reports say Fox's overall ratings are down 45% since whatever they did to take Carlson off the air. This makes it a corporate crisis, and that makes it worth studying for its own sake. How is Fox responding? Mostly it appears Fox's strategy is to leak dirt about Carlson to distract attention from its own bungling. But not every adult was ever a Tucker Carlson fan, so this goes only so far.

One Fox strartegy has been to tie Carlson's departure to the Dominion settlement, as well as to the Abby Grossberg suit against Fox for various sorts of discrimination. Indeed, some details of newsroom conduct from the Grossberg lawsuit are remarkably puerile, but they reflect only indirectly on Carlson hinself, whom Grossberg never met, and she never worked in the same facility with him:

Grossberg, who is Jewish, claims she was subjected to religious discrimination by a senior producer, Alex McCaskill, who had placed three inflatable Christmas decorations in the bookings area – “a preposterous display that was distracting and loud” and a smaller one by her desk with a sign that read “Hannukah bush”.

Well, I've got to say that since I didn't go to an exclusive prep school, I went instead to Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, where I learned to get along with Jewish kids and had stopped telling jokes about Hannukah bushes after I was maybe 15. But theres's no evidence that Tucker was even aware of this stuff. Nevertheless, it appears that Fox is getting its own version out:

One day before the Dominion trial was set to begin and before Carlson’s ouster, Fox’s board of directors reviewed previously disclosed text messages sent by Carlson to his producer that caused the board to hatch a plan to hire a law firm to investigate Carlson, two sources told New York Times.

“It remains unclear how the text escaped more notice earlier, given that the Fox legal team was aware of it and other offensive texts written by Mr. Carlson,” the Times reported. “Mr. Carlson had even been asked about it during a deposition, according to several people who have read the unredacted transcripts of his deposition.”

. . . “After the Dominion settlement, there was clearly a meeting at the network—I don’t know if it was a board meeting or just the Murdochs, but someone made a decision—and said these two are the biggest threats to the network and they don’t listen to anyone,” the source told Breitbart News about Carlson and Dan Bongino.

The Dominion settlement, along with additional legal exposure, changed the board’s outlook on Carlson and ultimately led to his ouster. The Murdochs were rattled, sources told Breitbart News.

The whole story, which appears to be a quasi-offical version sorta-kinda but not quite coming from a board-level source, has a vague and dreamy quality. There was a deision to settle the Dominion lawsuit, which had little to do with Carlson, since he had long since distanced his own position from Sidney Powell, who was Dominion's main detractor.

However, the version somehow suggests that in fretting over Dominion, the Fox board, or maybe it was just the Murdochs, nobody's quite clear, got upset about unrelated text messages Tucker sent his producers, and apparently that got them fretting that someone else joked about a Hannukah bush, and this made the board decide Carlson had to go right after they settled the Dominon suit, or something like that.

This leaves aside the bigger question of why Fox decided to settle the Dominion suit in the first place. Alan Dershowitz has been vocal in rasing this question:

It’s a settlement that should never have happened. Dominion wasn’t hurt. It really didn’t lose any money… It’s probably making more in its lawsuits than counting votes. And it would have been very hard for them to prove any damages.

. . . the judgement itself to make a deal was not based on cost-benefit financial analysis. Something else had to have been involved. Maybe FOX was afraid of disclosure of even more dirty laundry.

So we're back to a situation where not only is nobody sure exactly what happened to Tucker and why, but it's somehow related to the Dominion settlement, except nobody knows why they did that, either. Maybe they were afraid of dirty laundry, like maybe jokes about Hannukah bushes. Yes, they're puerile, but solving that problem, if that's the problem they were trying to solve, cost Fox nearly half its prime time viewership.

And Tucker wasn't a team player. Dershowitz said in another context:

Dershowitz told "Rob Schmitt Tonight" the settlement is troubling to him because of its effect on the First Amendment — it might leave Fox inclined to self-censor for fear of further lawsuits.

. . . "I would never remain with a network that censored me," he said.

"I always express my views and was always told [by Newsmax], "be free to express your views, that's why we want you.' "

So far, Fox is simply continuing to damage its credibility with its market, who are fleeing to alternate news channels. People don't need to be Harvard Law professors to figure that out.

And the version we've been getting so far from Fox is simply the long way around what we've had from the start: nobody knows exactly what they did to Carlson or why exactly they did it. Somebody told the New York Times, very hush hush, that it might have been the Murdochs, or it might have been the board, nobody knows. What does the Times pay the reporter who wrote this?

I'm still willing to bet it was just a fit of pique from an increasingly erratic Rupert Murcoch himself, who has ainglehandedly created a corporate crisis and is likely micromanaging an utterly feckless response. dershowitz