Jews Are Being Expelled From The New Deal Coalition, Or Maybe They're Walking Out

Tolerance of anti-Semitic and even pro-genocide demonstrations on campuses in particular since October 7 has provoked a certain amount of recalibration among Jews over where their political alliances should lie. Some of it goes directly to the established Democrat party alignment that's persisted in many ways since Reconstruction. The playwright David Mamet wrote this past Monday,

We New York Jews have always voted for the Democrats, as their policies appealed to the immigrants and the first generation (my parents). A Fair Shake, a safety net, and unionism were manna to the newly arrived — in spite of (in both their and my lifetime) quotas and antisemitic discrimination. The immigrant Jews did well here, and voted for Franklin Roosevelt. And we are voting for him still.

His Advisor on Jewish Affairs (jude-suss, or “house-Jew”) was Rabbi Stephen Wise, the “dean” of the American Rabbinate. He referred to FDR as “Boss”, and brought home to his community Roosevelt’s assurance of aid to the dying Jews of Europe. Yet Roosevelt’s aid stopped with his assurances, and tens of thousands of Jews died because of his restrictive immigration policies, and millions in Europe because of his refusal to interdict the Holocaust.

Well, Roosevelt was an upper-class, prep school and Ivy League Episcopalian to the core. As someone pointed out, were it not for polio, all he'd be would be George H W Bush. He said privately in 1942 that the United States was “a Protestant country”, “and the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance.”

Mamet continues,

Why do Jews vote Democratic? Partly from tradition — conservatives have heard a Liberal Jew, when asked to defend or explain various absurd or inconsistent Democratic positions, shrug and joke: “I’m a Congenital Democrat.” I understand, for I was one, too.

But there is no more cosy mystery in the antisemitism of the Democratic Party; Representatives are affiliated with the Democratic Socialists and pro-Palestinians, calling for the end of the state of Israel — that is, for the death of the Jews. And Democrat Representatives repeat and refuse to retract the libel that Israel bombed a hospital, in spite of absolute proof to the contrary, and will not call out the unutterable atrocities of Hamas. The writing is on the wall. In blood.

Moses was instructed to have the Jews smear blood on their doorposts to identify themselves, and, so, avert the wrath of the Angel of Death. Mythologically, the blood can be said to be their own: the message, that if they chose to stay in Egypt, their blood would not mark the doorpost, but would wash the floor.

It's worth noting that the Ku Klux Klan wasn't just anti-black; its secondary focus was anti-Catholic, it was anti-Semitic, and it was aligned with white segregationist Democrat politics in the South.

The lynching of Leo Frank, a prominent Jewish businessman in Atlanta, alarmed Jewish Americans in 1915. He was falsely accused and convicted of killing a worker, Mary Phagan, in the pencil factory that he managed. After Georgia Governor John M. Slaton stayed Frank's execution because of a lack of evidence, a mob dragged him from the jail and lynched him.

. . . The Leo Frank incident also led to a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). By the mid-1920s, the KKK claimed to have four million members, more than all the Jews in the United States.

Another question is why the collegiate Diversity Equity and Inclusion mechanisms have failed to protect Jews. Armin Rosen writes in The Tablet,

If the DEI offices’ hearts aren’t in it—Jews being rich white people whose near ancestors just happened to have been the Nazis’ chief targets—they could at least feign a strategic interest in Jews, thus protecting themselves from future accusations of willful neglect.

. . . The nation’s army of campus DEI staff presumably exists for moments like this one, where an already unpopular minority group confronts an unanticipated surge of stress and potential danger. Yet DEI offices haven’t even bothered with pro forma expressions of fake concern.

He concludes,

For the past two weeks, DEI offices have had a chance to show they can be responsive to the real-life needs of young people facing a scary and unfamiliar crisis. But these offices clearly do not exist to serve Jews, or wish to recognize Jews might be capable of feeling pain, even when their friends and co-religionists have been slaughtered en masse. That’s because DEI bureaucracies don’t exist to serve actually existing people of any background. The purpose they serve is a theological one, and dogma enforcement is a big part of what universities do these days.

. . . An equity office’s job is to engineer the values of the rising elite so that DEI and the wider ideological edifice it serves will remain powerful, protected, and even feared. These bureaucracies are not burning through institutional capital in order to salve the anxieties of Jewish students, because helping students was never the point. Their ambitions are of a different order: DEI embodies the moral authority of a larger system for distributing status and power. It doesn’t care about actual human beings—and as we’ve learned since the massacre of October 7, it especially doesn’t care about Jews.

So the emerging moral consensus is moving toward excluding Jews, and Jews are somewhat belatedly coming to understand this. Mamet concludes,

Unprotected, we appealed to Power for decent consideration as Human Beings; and Power in America, the Democratic Party, was always happy to take our money and our votes, and ask us to wait in the Outer Office. As it does today.

We'll have to see where this takes us, but it's intriguing that current Jewish thought is leading in the direction that it's never been wise to trust the Democrats. Certainly Catholics and Labor, who have also been more or less reliable members of the New Deal coalition, have gradually been moving in the same direction. Franklin Roosevelt, after all, was never a man of the people.

What Does Nancy Pelosi Know?

Over the past week, Gavin Newsom has been on a trip to Israel and China:

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) joked about his presidential ambitions following a wartime trip to Israel, explaining the limits of his visit.

“I wish I was president of the United States,” he told reporters when asked about meeting with Israeli leaders, particularly to discuss a potential ceasefire with Hamas. He added afterward that he was joking. “I could start doing all those things."

According to Newsom, the brief and impromptu trip to Israel was “limited in scope.”

. . . Newsom is the second governor to travel to Israel amid the war with Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas, following Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY). New York has the largest population of Jewish people in America, as well as the largest population outside of Israel itself. California has the second-largest population in the U.S.

The California governor has answered as to whether he supports a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, something growing in popularity among the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Newsom, though, has reiterated that he "stands with Israel."

His joking remark about being president comes as speculation continues over a potential 2024 presidential bid. Newsom has consistently rejected the notion that he is considering a primary challenge to President Joe Biden, even serving as one of the most high-profile surrogates for his reelection campaign.

Moving on to China on Monday, by Wednesday, Newsom had a surprise high-profile meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The topics of his visit were carefully spun to limit them to issues like California-Chinese cooperation in climate change, but the Chinese were also eager to portray Newsom as a refreshing new figure:

A new editorial published Monday by the Global Times, a nationalistic English-language tabloid published by the propaganda department of the ruling Communist Party, states that Newsom is one of the most esteemed U.S. officials to make the journey overseas—citing the governor's first trip there as one of pragmatism as the U.S.-China relationship overall has been one of angst and vitriol in recent years.

"To be honest, Chinese people currently lack faith in Washington as a whole and have distrust toward some U.S. politicians. However, the welcome for Governor Newsom's visit is sincere and warm, as 'it is always a pleasure to greet a friend from afar,'" the editorial states.

I have two reactions. First, Newsom, 56, terms out as California governor in January 2027, when he'll be only 60. He's got to be looking toward a political future, especially one outside California, where the Democrat legislative supermajority has put the state on a disastrous course. That has got to involve running for president. Second, Nancy Pelosi, nominally "emerita" as House speaker, still runs things behind the scenes there and in California. Newsom will make no move without Pelosi's specific approval.

Newsom is also scheduled to debate Florida Gov DeSantis on Fox November 30. There's no question that Newsom is angling to become the only white Democrat (which is to say the only credible Democrat) in line behind Joe, definitely for 2028, but as a contingency for next year as well.

My guess is that Pelosi, although she's moving very carefully, is aware that Biden has vulnerabilities that make a 2024 run more iffy than has been generally portrayed. I suspect that she and a close circle of insiders are aware of the same thing I've suspected here, that Joe's various gaffes, microaggressions, stumbles, mumbles, and other infelicities are symptoms not of senility but long-term alcohol abuse.

I ran into a strange confirmation of this rereading Tom Hines's biography of Raymond Chandler, a well-known Hollywood drunk who had a period of sobriety in the 1930s and early 1940s until roughly the time Billy Wilder hired him to clean up James M Cain's Double Indemnity for the screen. Chandler at this point fell visibly off the wagon while vigorously insisting he was still sober -- and Hines cites sources who knew Chandler as well as typical alcoholic dodges to say that this was nothing unusual -- drunks lie to themselves and everyone else that they're sober, and indeed, like Joe Biden, that they've never had a drink, ever.

I suspect Pelosi and other insiders are fuily aware that Joe has multiple skeletons in multiple closets, and they're in the process of hedging against a set of scandals that will force Joe's withdrawal from the race late in next year's primary season, leaving a limited field with no potential Democrat replacement having a clear primary campaign record. This will open the opportunity for Newsom to become the consensus last-minute white guy who isn't either Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg.

He would keep Kamala as vice president.

The Alaska Airlines Pilot Who Tried To Crash The Plane

This is an intersectional story, because it links pilots who shouldn't be flying, magic mushrooms, and Oregon. According to KRON4,

Joseph David Emerson, 44, of Pleasant Hill [CA], was off-duty and sitting in the cockpit Sunday evening when he suddenly tried to cut off the jet’s engines, according to on-duty pilots who flew Horizon Air Flight AS 2059.

The pilots said they wrestled with Emerson for control of the aircraft, he pulled on emergency controls to cut the engines’ fuel, and the jet was “seconds away” from becoming a glider, prosecutors wrote in court documents. The quick-thinking captain, co-pilot, and flight crew were able to throw Emerson out of the cockpit, handcuff him, and make an emergency landing at a Portland airport.

On Tuesday, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office filed 84 charges against Emerson, including 83 counts of felony second-degree attempted murder, and one count of endangering an aircraft. The flight had 11 passengers who were children, court records state.

. . . Emerson was interrogated by Port of Portland Police Department officers who hauled him off the plane and took him into custody. During the interrogation, he admitted to pulling the jet’s emergency shut-off handles that control engine fuel, and described a motive behind why he did it, court documents filed by Deputy District Attorney Anthony Dundon state.

. . . “Emerson indicated he was in a mental crisis and had not slept in over 40 hours. Emerson admitted to (POPPD Officer) Thommen that he pulled both emergency shut-off handles because Emerson believed he was dreaming and wanted to wake up,” Dundon wrote.

. . . Emerson also said he had struggled with depression for six years and his best friend had recently passed away, according to court documents. He also admitted to trying “magic mushrooms” for the first time 48 hours prior to the flight, Dundon wrote.

So, aren't pilots routinely screened for psychological problems? Well, not really As of the 2012 link,

The case of the ranting JetBlue Airways captain—who went berserk when his co-pilot locked him out of the cockpit after noticing erratic behavior—got us wondering: how are airline pilots tested for soundness of mind?

Although the Federal Aviation Administration requires physicals every year for commercial pilots under 40 and every six months for those older, the FAA does not require psychological checks. The FAA-approved doctors order testing only if they think a pilot needs it.

. . . In the case of JetBlue captain Clayton Osbon, who snapped in mid-air on an Airbus A-320 on March 27, causing Flight 191 from New York to Las Vegas to be diverted to Amarillo, Texas, “it looked to me like a panic attack,” says Funk. The co-pilot “got the distraction out of the cockpit, which is the way you think as a crew member. He did what I expect any pilot at his level to do. You don’t fly at JetBlue if you’re a slouch.”

Once locked out, Osbon began shouting about threats from al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq, and bombs aboard; he had to be subdued and strapped down by passengers, while the co-pilot took over and later landed the airliner. JetBlue is as mystified as anyone else about Osbon’s meltdown. “I’ve known the captain personally for a long period of time,” CEO Dave Barger told the “Today” show on March 28. “There [was] no indication of this at all in the past. Consummate professional.”

It’s exceptionally rare for a commercial pilot to simply lose it in flight, says John Cox, who flew for USAir for 25 years and is now president of Safety Operating Systems, an aviation safety consulting company in Washington, D.C. “I’ve been in aviation 42 years and I can’t come up with another case like this. This is an incapacitation event, and the leading cause of that is food poisoning…From a mental standpoint, it could be any number of things such as reaction to medication, a brain tumor, or a long list of things.”

In the case of Alaska Airlines pilot Emerson, it was magic mushrooms. But it's notable that Emerson was 44, which meant he was subject to physicals with some implicit psychological component at six-month intervals, and he had been suffering from depression for the past six years, yet he fell through the cracks.

Add to this the new tendency to legalize psychedelics, including magic mushrooms. Earlier this year,

Oregon has taken an unprecedented step in offering psilocybin, also known as magic mushrooms, to the public. Epic Healing Eugene - America's first licensed psilocybin service center - opened in June, marking Oregon's unprecedented step in offering the mind-bending drug to the public. The center now has a waitlist of more than 3,000 names, including people with depression, PTSD or end-of-life dread.

No prescription or referral is needed, but proponents hope Oregon's legalization will spark a revolution in mental health care. Clients do not need to live in Oregon to access psilocybin services but must be 21 years of age or older, said the state's Oregon Psilocybin Services. A preparation session must be completed with a licensed facilitator, the agency said.

It isn't known how Cpt Emerson obtained his 'shrooms, but it looks like, had he chosen, he could have swung by the legal dispensary in Eugene to participate in this revolution in mental health care. After all, 'shrooms are said to be remarkably helpful for, among others, those suffering from depression. Perhaps Edwards hadn't availed himself of the preparation session with a licensed facilitator. (Hey, how do you get that job?)

This is a front-burner issue for Robert Kennedy Jr:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the 2024 Democratic presidential legacy candidate with what may be the most famous last name in U.S. politics, says that he would legalize psychedelics and marijuana if elected to the White House – a promise that may surely get him support from psychedelic drug advocates in the United States. He also expressed his intent to federally tax both substances and use the revenue to create “healing centers” in rural areas for the millions of U.S. citizens who suffer from drug addiction. These healing centers would serve as a therapeutic tool for people recovering from substance abuse, where they could learn organic farming and heal physically, spiritually and emotionally[.]

Just get the meth heads on 'shrooms. That'll fix everything. It sounds to me as though the airline industry still needs a wakeup call, but the libertarians and others who want to legalize psychedelics at minimum are living in a dream world. It would be sad if a real crash had to raise this issue, rather than a close call.

But Really, Are Maher Bitar And Ariane Tabatabai Secret Agents?

This post on Xwitter sums up the questions many Republicans have been posing in recent weeks:

Maher Bitar, a Palestinian activist, Ariane Tabatabai, an Iranian with deep ties in Iran are heading up our intelligence and defense. Robert Malley, who hired Tabatabai, had his security clearance removed. @MTG can oversight get answers? pic.twitter.com/L0Zk83cx5S

— #ProblemSolved (@ProblemSolved57) October 21, 2023

In other words, are Bitar, Tabatabai, and certain other figures like Reema Dodin currently working in sensitive jobs in the US government, actually agents of one sort or another for Iran or the Palestinians? If they are, while I acknowledge I'm a total outsider to that business, there are things that don't fit.

Let's just compare Bitar and Tabatabai to one of the most successful spies in recent history, Robert Hanssen, whose photo is at the top of this post. According to Wikipedia,

Robert Philip Hanssen (April 18, 1944 – June 5, 2023) was an American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent who spied for Soviet and Russian intelligence services against the United States from 1979 to 2001. His espionage was described by the Department of Justice as "possibly the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history".

In 1979, three years after joining the FBI, Hanssen approached the Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) to offer his services, beginning his first espionage cycle, lasting until 1981. He restarted his espionage activities in 1985 and continued until 1991, when he ended communications during the collapse of the Soviet Union, fearing he would be exposed. Hanssen restarted communications the next year and continued until his arrest. Throughout his spying, he remained anonymous to the Russians.

For starters, Hanssen had a long career as a spy that extended, with breaks, over a 22-year period, nearly as long as his career with the FBI itself. While Hanssen was remarkably careless at times in risking exposure through his sexual activities, the FBI appears to have discounted them and relied instead on his regular attendance at Catholic mass -- typically at times and parishes where his FBI superiors would see him -- to protect him. This appears to have worked for quite some time.

Hanssen's motives appear to have been enitirely financial, and he had an MBA, which suggests that his efforts were purpose-driven, methodical, and supplemented by his own growing background in counterintelligence. In general, his aim was to increase his value to his handlers by building credibility over a lengthy period of activity. As part of the overall effort, he at least made routine attempts to avoid bringing attention to himself while reinforcing a conservative Catholic public profile.

The Wikipeida entry on clandestine human intelligence says, at least of couriers,

Any involvement of the courier in activities that may draw attention from counterintelligence is unwise. For example, if there is a political party, friendship society, or other organization that would be considered favorable to Service B, couriers, under no circumstances, should be identified with them.

But wouldn't this apply to practically any clandestine operative? For instance, the Soviet government never showed serious interest in Lee Harvey Oswald's attempts to recruit himself as a Soviet spy, concerned that his various endorsements of communism indicated either mental instability or a likelihood that he was himself a CIA agent.

This would apply as well to Bitar's, Tabatabai's, and Dodin's fast-rising and high-profile careers as Iranian or Palestinian apologists, and in Bitar's and Dodin's cases well-documented participation in pro-Palestinian organizations and demonstrations. These immediately called attention to their potential subversive loyalties -- why would a clandestine organization want them in sensitive positions where they'd likely be constantly under suspicion? And even if they were placed in sensitive positions by a compromised superior, wouldn't this just throw immediate suspicion on the superior?

This may have happened, in fact, with Robert Malley, who is sometimes now thought to be the master spy responsible for recruiting Ariane Tabatabai. Maybe so, but if that was the case, he blew it, because he had his security clearance suspended and was put on leave from his job -- and i wouldn't be unusual for counterintellegence to leave Tabatabai in place to watch her and see whom she contacts.

So a real spy, a real mole, like Robert Hanssen, works over a much longer term and goes to some length not to draw attention to himself. His handlers will expect the same circumspection if only to protect themselves. Tabatabai and Bitar have had only short careers and by now are thoroughly blown -- from late adolescence, they did the opposite of keep a low profile. Instead, they come off as narcissistic self-promoters from the start.

I don't see them as spy material. They may well have influential sponsors who want to further their protégés' careers in intelligence or foreign affairs, but those sponsors have to be rank amateurs who if anything are doing damage to the causes they support. The decisions to hire them for sensitive positions are mainly incredibly bad personnel choices, but they've been made primarily through incompetence. At this point, they're more valuable to counterintelligence if they stay in their positions, because then they can be carefully watched.

And there's the other distinction, between actual agents of influence and useful idiots. At best, it seems to me that Tabatabai and Bitar are more on the useful idiot side, but I'm not sure if smart handlers on the Palestinian or Iranian side would even want them as useful idiots. They're narcissistic self-promoters playing in their own little personal dramas.

Who Is Maher Bitar?

One thing I've come to notice about the recent questionable diplomatic and intelligence appointments in the administration like Robert Malley and Ariane Tabatabai is how quickly their careers have taken off, although Malley's is currently on hold. As I noted with some puzzlement in this post, by the time she was about 30 as a PhD student, Tabatabai was writing in prestigious foreign policy journals and then began a meteoric rise among various university faculties, NGOs, and the RAND Corporation. Her main qualification appears to have been that she is the daughter of Javad Tabatabai, an Iranian philosopher and professor at the University of Tehran who is close to the mullahs in the government there.

Over the weekend i saw mention of a similar figure, Maher Bitar, who we're told is of Palestinian heritage, but about whom we otherwise know little besides a precocious career rise much like Tabatabai's. His profile as a member of Georgetown Law School's class of 2012 is as informative as any:

Maher Bitar serves as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs on the White House’s National Security Council staff. From 2017 to early 2021, Bitar served as General Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Before joining the Committee, Bitar was a member of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee from 2015 until early 2017 in his capacity as Deputy to the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. While a career civil servant at the Department of State, Bitar served previously on the White House’s National Security Council staff and as a diplomat focused on the Middle East. Bitar holds a Juris Doctor from Georgetown Law, received a Master of Science degree from the University of Oxford as a Marshall Scholar, and completed his undergraduate studies at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

A law degree in 2012 would put him in his mid-twenties at the time, which might put his birth date in the late 1980s. But even before his law degree, he seems to have attracted attention and likely influential sponsors.

As Daniel Greenfield reported at Frontpage online magazine, in 2006, as a student at Georgetown University, Bitar was a leader of the anti-Semitic, Muslim Brotherhood aligned Students for Justice in Palestine. As an SJP leader, he organized a so-called "boycott, divestment, and sanctions" campaign against Israel and its supporters on his campus. Greenfield reported that Bitar chaired a panel at a BDS conference where participants discussed how to indoctrinate Christians to believe that Israel has no right to exist.

If he was an undergraduate in 2006, this would also put his birthdate in the mid to late 1980s. He apparently left Georgetown without a bachelor's, went on to Oxford, where he received a Master's in Forced Migration about 2008 (the thesis is available online here), apparently returned to Georgetown and completed his bachelor's degree, and then earned a Georgetown law degree. It's hard to avoid thinking an influential sponsor was behind this fast track.

A federal employee profile puts Bitar working at the US State Department in foreign affairs between 2011 and 2016. He started while still a law student as a Social Science Student Trainee at -- wait for it -- $51,630 per year and wound up there as a GG-15 at $128,082 per year in 2016. At that time,

During the Obama presidency, Bitar served on the National Security Council as the Israeli-Palestinian officer. He was Samantha Power's deputy. In 2016, as UN ambassador, Power played a key role in the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which labeled Israeli neighborhoods in unified Jerusalem and Israeli towns and cities in Judea and Samaria as a "flagrant violation of international law."

But Bitar is nothing if not a polymath. When the Democrats were voted out in 2016, he moved over to serve as general counsel for the House Intelligence Committee Democrats and played a key role during the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump. Five years out of law school, an expert on Palestinians and working mostly as a diplomat, he's now a general counsel running a comic-opera impeachment.

But with the Democrats returning to the White House in January 2021, it was

announced that Maher Bitar has been appointed to serve as the senior director for Intelligence at the National Security Council. The position is one of the most powerful posts in the US intelligence community. The senior director is the node to which all intelligence from all agencies flows. He decides what to share with the President. And in the name of the President, he determines priorities for intelligence operations and collection.

. . . As one former senior national security council member explained, "The senior director for intelligence controls the information everyone sees. And by controlling information, he controls the conversation."

Usually, the sensitive position is reserved for a CIA officer who is detailed to the National Security Council. Bitar, however, is not an intelligence professional. He is an anti-Israel political activist.

It's hard to avoid thinking that influential people have been managing Bitar's career at least from his time as an undergraduate at Georgetown and have been in positions to assure his advancement at early ages for the positions he's held, like general counsel to a congressional committee or senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, even to the point where he seems to have lacked the basic qualifications for such jobs. How could this happen? This article has a hint:

Washington has announced the appointment of Maher Bitar to senior director for intelligence in President Joe Biden’s National Security Council.

He will oversee the stream of information between the White House and US intelligence agencies.

Bitar previously served as the director for Israeli-Palestinian affairs on the National Security Council under former President Barack Obama.

. . . A Palestinian source reports that messages were passed from Biden’s staff to the Palestinians through a Palestinian billionaire living in Washington in recent months and were initiated by a US diplomat of Lebanese descent, Hady Amr.

Amr, who is married to a Palestinian woman, was a member of Martin Indyk’s staff, held a number of positions in Barack Obama’s administration, and is considered to have promoted the idea of ​​alliances with Islamic elements in the Arab world.

The one message this sends to me is that people like Tabatabai and Bitar are puppets themselves and probably not very smart. We'll have to see how this shakes out.

The Ivy Dilemma

Harvard gets 60,000 applicants every year, and if Harvard came to its senses and expelled your genocide-loving asses, 59,300 would happily run over their own grandmothers to fill your spot https://t.co/H1D9Yb3eYV

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) October 20, 2023

The post on Xwitter above raises an interestimg question: right now, we're at the start of the 2024 college application season. Early decision deadlines begin on November 1, while regular decisions start early next year. The current brouhaha over pro-Palestine demonstrations at elite schools ought to affect applications over the coming 2024 admissions season, right? For instance, here's Bill Maher:

As an Ivy League graduate who knows the value of a liberal education, I have one piece of advice for the youth of America: Don’t go to college, and if you absolutely have to go, don’t go to an elite college, because, as recent events have shown, it just makes you stupid. There are few, if any, positives to come out of what happened in Israel, but one of them is opening America’s eyes to how higher education has become indoctrination into a stew of bad ideas, among them the simplistic notion that the world is a binary place where everyone either an oppressor or oppressed. In the case of Israel, oppressors being babies and bubbes. The same students who will tell you that words are violence, and silence is violence were very supportive when Hamas terrorists went on a rape and murder rampage worthy of the Vikings. They knew where to point the fingers, at the murdered. And then it was off to ethics class.

Do you suspect for one instant that the volume of elite-school applications will drop at all as a result of all this fulmination? The tell that it won't is Maher's need to reassure the reader at the start that he has an Ivy League education himself. Glenn Reynolds, a professor with an endowed chair and Yale Law degree makes these qualifications eminently plain as he posts, Academia is bringing about its own destruction. If it is, he's watching it from the VIP boxes high above the field.

Prof William Jacobson posts on Leftist Campus Embrace Of Hamas Barbarism: “We’re in the ‘suddenly’ phase” of Higher Ed collapse. Jacobson is a professor at Cornell and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law. Neither Reynolds nor Jacobson appears ready to abandon academe's sinking ship. Even Alan Dershowitz so far hs neither publicly burned his Yale Law degree and returned its ashes nor renounced his emeritus professorship at Harvard.

I once got into an argument with an economics professor in the comments section of his blog. He challenged me, if I saw so many flaws in academia, to find a way to arbitrage the differences in product quality and make money out of it. I never really tried to give him a systematic answer, although it later occurred to me that I arbitraged the situation in my own career by recognizing, as I began writing my PhD dissertation, that I would likely make far more money in a career outside the academy without a PhD than I would inside the academy with one, and I never looked back. So that's my answer to Reynolds and Jacobson.

My belated answer to the economics prof is that the undergraduate higher education product is so thoroughly uniform and cartelized that arbitrage is effectively impossible. It's like the airline industry under fare regulation -- every airline had to charge the same fare between any pair of cities, so that they had to sell the sizzle, not the steak. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are selling the sizzle, an undergraduate product that's otherwise indistinguishable from one university to the next.

The only real arbitrage that's currently taking place is with a few institutions like Hillsdale College, but that's a different subject that I may take up another time.

But let's return to my original question here: will there be any decline in applications to elite schools for 2024 admissions due to any perceived defect in product quality that might be reflected in pro-Hamas and anti-Jewish demonstrations on campus? My sense of things is that if there's any decline, it will be traceable almost entirely to economic conditions, not product quality. In fact, I would even ask if any decline in Ivy applications would be reflected in an increase in applications to Brandeis University, Yeshiva University, American Jewish University, or Touro University. Instead, I would guess that even Jewish applications to the Ivies will continue at more or less the same level.

I first visited these issues 20 years ago or so when I became interested in the Dartmouth alumni trustee movement. This arose early in the last century when Dartmouth College, facing a financial crisis, asked its alumni to bail the school out, in return for which several seats on the board of directors would be nominated and elected by the alumni. This went unnoticed for decades until, in the 1980s and 1990s, conservative students began criticizing liberal faculty and administration policies. The result was that sympathetic alumni organized campaigns to elect avowed conservatives to the board as opportunities arose.

I participated in online forums and wrote several articles in The Dartmouth Review in support of the movement. I saw the potential for a curriculum more like Hillsdale College, although I was always somewhat skeptical of the movement's aims and whether they could be accomplished. The movement foundered for two reasons: first, the alumni trustees who were elected turned out to be narcissistic self-promoters, and one was arrested for domestic violence on top of that.

The other reason was harder to beat, most alumni, but especially the parents of current students, objected to the movement on the basis that any controversy about the quality of the Dartmouth product would detract from the perceived value of a Dartmouth degree on a resume. The parents in particular -- many of whom were alumni themselves -- didn't like the idea of annual fees that could otherwise buy a really nice boat or vacation home going to something that wouldn't pay off in a child's career.

That sank the movement, and the college moved to seize control of the trustee nominating process to prevent its reemergence. The problem with the current round of complaints about the Ivies is similar: alumni, parents, current and prospective students, even Jews, won't tolerate any perceived decline in the value of an Ivy degree. At best, they're going to take objections to elite education -- that it actually makes you stupid, as Bill Maher alleges -- cover their ears and go LALALALA.

There have been a number of elite-school scandals in recent years, including the Varsity Blues and now the pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses, that have had no real impact on the demand for elite-school admissions. It's going to take something much, much bigger to change things.

The $200,000 Check

Yesterday the Comer committee released a copy of a $200,000 personal check from Joe's younger brother Jim to Joe himself, characteied as a "loan repayment". Per the committee,

In 2018, James Biden received $600,000 in loans from, Americore—a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator.

According to bankruptcy court documents, James Biden received these loans “based upon representations that his last name, ‘Biden,’ could ‘open doors’ and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections.”

On March 1, 2018, Americore wired a $200,000 loan into James and Sara Biden’s personal bank account – not their business bank account.

And then on the very same day, James Biden wrote a $200,000 check from this same personal bank account to Joe Biden.

There's less to this than meets the eye. There's no specific quid pro quo involved, at least from what we can see now, and Joe was out of office at the time. Both Joe and Jim can claim it was what it said it was, just a loan repayment, nobody's business but theirs. On the other hand, it does reflect a mingling of family finances that we've seen especially in Joe and Hunter's dealings with each other. The committee continues,

Even if this was a personal loan repayment, it’s still troubling that Joe Biden’s ability to be paid back by his brother depended on the success of his family’s shady financial dealings.

Some immediate questions President Biden must answer for the American people:

Does he have documents proving he lent such a large sum of money to his brother and what were the terms of such financial arrangement?

Did he have similar financial arrangements with other family members that led them to make similar large payments to him?

Just the News provides additional context to the Jim Biden deal. In 2018, Jim received a total of $600,000 in loans from Americore, which the committee characterizes as "a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator" that eventually declared bankruptcy.

After Americore Health declared bankruptcy, a Chapter 11 trustee sued James Biden alleging that the company loaned him $600,000 while it was struggling to stay afloat.

"Instead, of complying with his fiduciary responsibilities, Defendant helped Debtors procure an ill-advised bridge loan from a hedge fund that had a deleterious impact on the financial affairs of the Debtor and ultimately forced Debtors into bankruptcy, as he never delivered the promised the large investment from the Middle East," the bankruptcy court document reads. "And worse, Defendant never repaid the Loans to Americore Health, including during the time that Debtors were strapped for cash."

The plaintiff claims that it did not receive an equivalent value in services for the payments to James Biden and that the company was "Was insolvent on the dates that such transfers were made, or became insolvent as a result of such transfers."

. . . Americore has faced its own legal troubles and accusations from employees of improper management that are separate from James Biden's relationship with the company.

The UK Daily Mail has the best account of how these circustances affect Joe:

In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, Bush administration White House ethics chief Painter said that the President could face serious consequences if he can't produce evidence the supposed loan is real, and demanded his aides show the receipts.

'What is absolutely critical here is to find documentation of the original loan from the President to his brother, and the President should produce that,' Painter said.

'If there was no loan, there are serious questions about whether this was income for tax purposes in 2018. That's really a huge problem.

. . . When he announced his bid for President in 2019, he was required to file a statement with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) listing his income, assets and liabilities dating back to 2017.

OGE rules say Joe did not have to report the loan itself on his disclosure forms. But Painter said interest earned on the loan could be reportable as an income source for the then-presidential candidate.

On his form, filed in July 2019, Joe listed income ranging from tens of thousands of dollars from speaking engagements dating back to November 2017, to a $950 distribution from a retirement account.

But there were no entries for interest payments from his brother James – who goes by the nickname 'Jim'.

'I think that would have to go on the form, if you got interest from your brother. And it certainly would have to go on the tax forms,' Painter said.

'If it was not a loan, then there would be serious problems over why it wasn't reported on the 2019 candidate disclosure form, as well as for income tax.'

IRS rules say loans between family members must charge a minimum interest rate in order to not be considered gifts or income. At the time, the minimum rate was around 3%, which would be $6,000 for a year-long $200,000 loan.

One thing that's significant for me is that, in addition to showing more widespread commingling of family business interests and at least one payment directly to Joe, we're starting to see amounts that would be more worth Joe's time. Five-figure payments here and there, which we've seen via Hunter, won't support the Biden family lifestyles. A six-figure payment comes closer, but we'd have to see a lot more of this kind of thing to make the whole idea credible.

What works in our favor at this point is that Jim is simply not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That he would write a $200,000 personal check to Joe and call it a "loan repayment" suggests this won't be the only clumsy move we'll find -- it llooks like Hunter, his partners, and other family retainers were much more circumspect. Jim juist wrote personal checks.

But again, this is just another episode that will keep Joe from ever holding a traditional press conference with freewheeling questions from reporters.