Who Is Katherine Maher?

I've long had an interest in the sociology of what C Wright Mills called the power elite, modified by Ferdinand Lundberg's view that a somewhat smaller cabal of powerful families and their retainers actually controls the planet.

Over the past week or so, we've seen a new star rise in what must be that constellation, Katherine Maher, named at age 41 to be CEO of National Public Radio this past January with no journalistic experience, although she has a lengthy resume in foreign policy and non-profit circles. Uri Berliner had little to say about her directly in the critical essay that led to his resignation, except to say,

A few weeks ago, NPR welcomed a new CEO, Katherine Maher, who’s been a leader in tech. She doesn’t have a news background, which could be an asset given where things stand. I’ll be rooting for her. It’s a tough job. Her first rule could be simple enough: don’t tell people how to think. It could even be the new North Star.

But this is an example of what I accused Berliner of yesterday, obliviousness. Katherine Maher has never been "a leader in tech", so let's start by taking a look at her real backgound. Via Wikipedia,

Maher grew up in Wilton, Connecticut, and attended Wilton High School. After high school, Maher graduated from the Arabic Language Institute's Arabic Language Intensive Program of The American University in Cairo in 2003, which she recalled as a formative experience that developed her interest in the Middle East. Maher subsequently studied at the Institut français d'études arabes de Damas in Syria and spent time in Lebanon and Tunisia.

In 2005, Maher received a bachelor's degree from New York University in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies.

Maher originally intended to be an academic and work for human rights and international development organizations.

Two key markers are conspicuously missing here -- she went to a public high school, not a prestigious private prep school, and she didn't go to an Ivy-level university. I did a web search on NYU, and I found a number of opinions along this line:

Things may have changed, but when I was growing up here/applying to college, NYU had a reputation for being the school that wealthy parents with more dollars than sense sent their kids to because they HAD to come to school here. You know that USC scandal? That's how NYU was perceived, all the way. Wealthy parents who had money to blow spending $60k a year on their kids to come here "take advantage of the city", i.e. partying hard and enjoying life downtown, with few repercussions because their parents were millionaires anyway. It was known much more for its glamorous/wealthy students rather than its intellectual rigor; but I'm 32 so maybe that all has changed in the intervening years.

In other words, it kinda sounds to me as if NYU is to New York as USC is to LA, and I say that as someone who has taught and studied at USC. But what about Ms Maher's susequent career? Back to Wikipedia:

After internships at the Council on Foreign Relations and Eurasia Group, in 2004 and 2005, respectively, Maher began working at HSBC in London, Germany, and Canada as part of their international manager development program.

So OK, it looks like she was being fast-tracked into the kind of foreign policy positions she'd studied for in the Arabic program in Cairo and in Lebanon and Tunisia. In fact, I would almost say she was being groomed for some sort of deep-state intelligence-related work in that area -- but then, no more spooking, she's doing banking. And then banking doesn't work out. Things quickly turn gaseous:

In 2007, Maher returned to New York City, where from 2007 to 2010, she worked at UNICEF as an innovation and communication officer. She worked to promote the use of technology to improve people's lives. She traveled extensively to work on issues related to maternal health, HIV/AIDS prevention, and youth participation in technology. One of her first projects at UNICEF involved testing MediaWiki extensions related to accessibility in Ethiopia. Another project received USAid Development 2.0 Challenge grant funding to work on the use of mobile phones to monitor nutrition in children in Malawi.

MediaWiki extensions related to accessibility in Ethiopia? What on earth is that? And this must be from her own resume -- hire me as a key member of your team, I worked on MediaWiki extensions related to accessibility in Ethiopia! Not only that, but I worked on the use of mobile phones to monitor nutrition in children in Malawi!

For several more years, there was more gaseousness, for instance consulting

on technology for international development and democratization, working on ICT for accountability and governance with a focus on the role of mobile phones and other technologies in facilitating civil society and institutional reform, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.

Then she worked at widely disparate jobs for a year or two at a time.

From 2013 to 2014, Maher was advocacy director at the Washington, D.C.-based Access Now. . . . Maher was chief communications officer of the Wikimedia Foundation from April 2014 to March 2016. . . . Maher became interim executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation in March 2016 following the resignation of executive director Lila Tretiko. . . . In 2019, Maher became CEO of Wikimedia. She proposed potentially paying contributors to help address gaps in diversity. Maher stepped down from her positions as CEO and executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation on April 15, 2021.

Then there's a three-year gap. At least back in the day, HR departments didn't like to see gaps like that on a resume; they could be covering up for, say, a stretch in prison, or maybe rehab. Whatever the explanation here, when she left Wikimedia, nobody seems to have wanted to hire her for useful work. Instead, after the three-year lacuna, it was back to non-profits:

From 2022 to 2023, Maher was a member of the US State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board, an expert panel established in 2011 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to advise US officials. As of 2023, she chairs the board of directors of the Signal Foundation. She is also the board chair of nonprofit organization, Adventure Scientists as of January 2023. In October that year, Web Summit appointed Maher as its new chief executive, to replace Paddy Cosgrave.

Wait a moment. Web Summit named her CEO in October of 2023, but she became CEO of NPR in March 2024? Sounds like something didn't work out bigly at Web Summit. I asked the web what Web Summit does and got this answer:

Web Summit’s mission has been to create software that enables meaningful connections between the CEOs, founders, investors, media, politicians and cultural figureheads who are reshaping the world.

In other words, it puts out gas, which seems to be the one thing Ms Maher has wide experience in doing. The overall impression I have is that her career has mostly involved trying one or another field and moving on to another without accomplishing much in any. But why does she keep moving from CEO position to CEO position? So far, I can get ony a partial answer. Wikipedia says her mother is Ceci Maher,

an American executive and politician. She currently serves as a member of the Connecticut State Senate, representing District 26, which encompasses Darien, New Canaan, Redding, Ridgefield, Stamford, Weston, Westport and Wilton, for the Democratic Party.

So there seems to be upscale Connecticut money in the family background, although Ceci became a member of the state senate very late in the day, elected only in 2022. Ceci's husband, Katherine's father, was Gordon Roberts Maher, a Goldman Sachs banking executive. His obituary says,

Gordon Roberts Maher, a retired vice president of commodities operations, and spiritual Parisian, died October 5, 2020 in Norwalk, CT of complications from alcoholism.

Gordon, known as Rob, or less frequently but more cherished to him, Gordo, Maher was born in Norwalk, Connecticut, growing up in Wilton, CT for a time. . . The family then decamped to St. Germain du Pres, France as a result of their father’s work at IBM where family lore contends he may or may not have been a postwar spy.

It sounds like there's generational wealth in the family, plus a likely intelligence involvement, which probably is how Katherine got fast-tracked into the Arab Studies program until she quickly didn't work out, went into banking -- likely via her father's influence -- until she didn't work out there, and then went into non-profits, where she doesn't seem to be working out all that well.

As far as I can see, the task of the power elite here has been to find someplace to park her. I doubt if it was ever expected that she'd accomplish much at NPR, and the consensus for now is that nothing will change there, whether she can hold onto her job or not. But given her track record, I don't expect her to last long, whether it's her tweets that do her in or something else.

NPR Suspended Uri Berliner? Is That All?

According to the New York Post,

NPR suspended Uri Berliner, the senior editor who published a bombshell essay a week ago that claimed that the publicly funded outlet has “lost America’s trust” by reporting the news with a left-wing bias.

NPR media writer David Folkenflik revealed on Tuesday that Berliner was sidelined for five days without pay beginning last Friday. Folkenflik, who reviewed a copy of the letter from NPR brass, said the company told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets — a requirement for NPR journalists.

NPR called the letter a “final warning,” saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR’s policy again.

This strikes me as remarkably lenient treatment. Corporate policies across the board prohibit employees from contacting the press without authorization from whatever department is responsible for press relations. For much of my career, I was involved in policy writing, and I still more or less carry in my head boilerplate for a wide range of policies. Here is something typical from King County, WA:

• King County staff should not communicate with the press about county business without prior authorization.
• If you are contacted by reporters, let them know you may not be the best person to represent the county on this issue and they should check with your department’s Public Information Officer.
• Media contact can range from a neighborhood blog to CNN. Your department’s Public Information Officer is here to help in these situations.

In the past, I usually included additional language in a proposed policy along the line of "employees who violate these guidelines are subject to discipline, up to and including termination." But once, I put this in a draft, and the vice president who reviewed it said there really wasn't a need to say this; employees simply need to be told this is the policy. In other cases, corporate policy-writing guidelines simply state that policies are to be expressed in positive terms, for instance, "Employees refer all contacts with the press to the Public Affairs Department". The King County policy seems to lean in this positive direction.

I knew a guy who was so proud of what his IT department had done to make working with his company easier that he very naively contacted a local TV station to tell them they should do a story on it. The TV station -- it probably didn't help that the company was an advertiser -- simply called the company PR department to ask if this had been authorized. My friend was walked out the door within the hour. That's how seriously corporations take contacting the press without authorization.

So what did Uri Berliner do? Early this month, he forwarded a manuscript to a web site, The Free Press, with the title I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.

An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.

That wouldn’t be a problem for an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience. But for NPR, which purports to consider all things, it’s devastating both for its journalism and its business model.

This strikes me as little different from an engineer at Boeing, say, while still employed by the company, sending something like this to the New York Times:

A quality spirit no longer exists at Boeing, and now predictably, our planes are crashing, door panels are blowing out in flight, and we don't care about the flying public.

This wouldn't be a problem for a schlock outfit, but for Boeing, a company with a world reputation, it's devastating for its products and its business model.

Like my friend from IT, he'd be out the door before lunch, and with more reason. In fact, let's give our hypothetical Boeing engineer credit for being rational and having situational awareness: he's got to be aware that he'll be fired for doing this. So this would likely be in a last-straw, had-it-up-to-here situation where he's flipping them off as he's headed out the door -- and since they're firing him, he's going to get unemployment. Likely as well, he's also figured it's time to try something new past aeronautical engineering, and he's already set up for a new career.

I just don't think this is Uri Berliner. But let's look at his relationship with NPR a little more closely. Here's how Berliner characterized himself in the Free Press piece:

You know the stereotype of the NPR listener: an EV-driving, Wordle-playing, tote bag–carrying coastal elite. It doesn’t precisely describe me, but it’s not far off. I’m Sarah Lawrence–educated, was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother, I drive a Subaru, and Spotify says my listening habits are most similar to people in Berkeley.

I fit the NPR mold. I’ll cop to that.

Which is to say he's also self-absorbed and entitled -- and oblivious. When I worked in IT, I had a pretty good feeling for the job market, and I knew that if I got fired, which I sometimes did, it wouldn't be too hard to land another job, which is a big reason I went into IT in the first place. But what's the job market in legacy media newsrooms? Here's CNN this past January:

The news industry is enduring a brutal start to the new year, with outlets large and small across the country hemorrhaging reporting staff as legacy business models that kept much of the industry afloat for decades collapse in plain sight.

The rapid contraction, coming even as the presidential election cycle heats up and public attention and revenues historically mount, has been on full display this month, with the first few weeks of 2024 ushering in a spate of painful layoffs at news organizations from coast-to-coast.

The Los Angeles Times slashed its newsroom by more than 20% earlier this week; TIME cut dozens of staffers; and Business Insider said it would trim its workforce by 8%. Meanwhile, hundreds of staffers at Condé Nast, Forbes, The New York Daily News, and others staged historic walkouts to protest planned cuts at the outlets.

So if Uri gets fired, the chances of him finding a new job in the industry are pretty bleak. So what was on his mind when he sent his piece to The Free Press? It's hard to say. He had to have been aware he was violating company policy -- the vice president who reviewed my policy draft said we take that, and the penalties, for granted when we publish policies. My guess is that he knew, as a longtime NPR emnployee, that there wouldn't be much of an actual penalty; in his case, five-day vacation.

So what was he trying to accomplish? He hardly changed any minds at NPR.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

He hardly moved the needle with the public at large -- in his essay at the link, he said,

Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find . . . the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.

If you are conservative, you will read this and say, duh, it’s always been this way.

Well, duh. But what's puzzling is that Berliner's differences with NPR's staff and their editorial policies are, as far as I can tell, miniscule. His disclaimer at the start about being raised by a lesbian peace activist mother makes this plain. So what problem is he trying to solve? Jeffrey Blehar at the National Review asks the same set of questions:

The subtext of the piece, however, was clear: “Now that I’ve aired our dirty laundry, I dare you to fire me before I eventually resign.” This was, for all its eloquence, functionally a career-terminating act. The various official responses from NPR, including a defensive rebuttal from NPR’s standards & practices editor and a five-day suspension without pay for “freelancing without permission,” indicate clearly that he is now persona non grata. To be fair, Berliner either certainly expected this or should have. As Phoebe Maltz Bovy aptly asks, “How many jobs are there where you could write a big essay about your beef with your workplace and keep your job?”

But this doesn't answer the question of what Berliner, a 68-year-old senior editor in a shrinking industry, was planning to do if he was fired. Maybe retire -- who knows? Blehar thinks he objected to the hiring of Katherine Maher as the new NPR CEO, but let's face it, what else did he expect? Legacy media is legacy media, he made a full career in it and knew every one of the rules for survival -- and he did in fact survive for an entire career.

I think I would put it to pure narcissism, the feeling he was entitled to his 15 minutes of fame by making a big show of faux integrity.

More From Dershowitz On Israel vs Iran

Alan Dershoweitz has a new essay on Substack that is a condensed version of yesterday's YouTube post linked above. He makes several points that I think clarify the legal and moral background for potential reprisals by Israel against Iran. First, as I more or less intuited from the start, Iran's drone and missile attack on Israel over the weekewnd was an act of war, defined in Wiktionary as "An action that would justify the initiation of hostilities against the perpetrator; an action that by its nature comprises a cessation of peace." Dershowitz says,

As a matter of law and morality, Israel is entitled to respond to this act of war by overwhelming, even disproportionate, force against Iranian military targets.

Iran declared war on Israel by sending more than 300 bombs in Israel’s direction, aimed at civilian as well as military targets in Jerusalem and other locations. As a matter of law and morality, Israel is entitled to respond to this act of war by overwhelming, even disproportionate, force against Iranian military targets.

In the YouTube presentation, he goes into the question of proportionality, which he raises above, at greater length, arguing that there is no moral requirement that the Israeli response be in some way "proportionate" to the Iranian act of war. Dershowitz is, as far as I can determine, a not fully observant Jew, and he makes no reference to specific moral guidance on proportionality. But this sent me to the Roman Catholic definition of just war doctrine in CCC 2309:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The specific initial damage in this case, inflicted by the Iranian proxy Hamas in an invasion of Israeli territory on October 7, 2023, was over 1000 civilian deaths, often accompanied by torture and rape, and the seizure of hundreds of hostages, many of which haven't been released and appear to have been tortured, raped, and killed in captivity. Every indication is that given the opportunity, Hamas would repeat this act, and demonstrators on Hamas's behalf frequently repeat the motto "death to Israel", which in light of historical records like the Holocaust appears to be a statement of ultimate intent.

Israel's ultimate aim in response, at least as interpreted by Dershowitz, should be an elimination of this threat to Israel and the community of nations:

Even if Israel were to respond moderately, Iran would continue to wage war against Israel. As long as the Mullahs run Iran, the Mideast will remain in turmoil from Iranian aggression, either direct or through its terrorist surrogates.

A new Holocaust would certainly be lasting, grave, and certain damage to Israel and the community of nations. Even piecemeal attacks like October 7, intended to kill over a thousand Jewish civilians, are unacceptable especially insofar as they're intended as partial steps toward the overall goal. Dershowitz sees only one practical solution to the problem:

Accordingly, the ultimate goal of any Israeli retaliation should be regime change. The means can include destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which would considerably weaken the regime. . . . if the majority of Iranians support regime change, it is simply a matter of time before it occurs. This is unlikely to occur if the regime develops a nuclear arsenal which can shield it from outside pressures.

But this brings up the question of whether there are serious prospects for success. Dershowitz makes no specific argument in this direction, and this may be a weakness in his position -- we may agree, as I did at the start of the Russo-Ukraine war, that it's desirable to evict Russia from Ukraine's legal boundaries, but as experience has shown, this isn't proving practical given the level of resources the US and NATO are able to comnmit to do this.

Dershowitz himself acknowledges that he doesn't know what specific measures Israel plans for its retaliation; considering how close he is to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog, this may not be entirely ingenuous, but there can be no question that feckless macho gestures like Iran's drone attack over the weekend would be insuficient to achieve any serious goal. But it's also clear that Israel would not deliberately inflict damage on civilians simply for the sake of killing civilians.

All we can be fairly certain about is that President Biden is not on board with any of Dershowitz's arguments, which strikes me as yet another indication of his overall deep moral confusion.

Remember The Pic Of Hillary And Obama In The Sit Room Watching Seal Team Six?

This pic, taken on May 1, 2011, has its own Wikipedia entry, which makes absolutely no reference to the widespread suspicion at the time that there must have been something hinky about it.

In May 2012, graphic artist Mara Zebest -- who was reportedly “working closely” with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's quest to prove Obama's birth certificate a forgery -- posted articles at American Thinker claiming that two famous photographs taken in the Situation Room on the day of the Bin Laden raid had been Photoshopped in order to create “The Illusion of Obama's Bin Laden Situation Room Leadership.”

. . . Six months before Zebest parsed the Situation Room photos, prominent conservative blogger Jim Hoft posted a story at his website headlined, “Swedish Paper: Obama Photoshopped into Famous Situation Room Photo.”

Citing a comment thread at Free Republic, Hoft embedded a picture from Swedish tabloid Afton Bladet featuring a caption asking readers “Do you see what is wrong with this picture?” In Hoft's telling, the tabloid concluded that the picture “must be a fake.”

I don't endorse those theories, but I'm never comfortable with an image that's just too good, which this one is. Which brings me to another photo from the Sit Room that was released yesterday in the belated wake of the Iranian missile and drone attack on Israel:

So OK, fine, it's a meeting, roughly a day after the actual attack began, which I pointed out in yesterday's post, and President Joe is heading it up. What do we know about Joe in meetings? Well, we have James Comey's recollection of how things went in meetings when Joe was vice president:

Former FBI Director James Comey recalled in his book that “Obama would have a series of exchanges heading a conversation very clearly and crisply in Direction A. Then, at some point, Biden would jump in with, ‘Can I ask something, Mr. President?’”

Comey continued: “Obama would politely agree, but something in his expression suggested he knew full well that for the next five or 10 minutes we would all be heading in Direction Z. After listening and patiently waiting, President Obama would then bring the conversation back on course.”

Except in the meeting over the weekend, there was no President Obama to bring things back on course. Having been in my share of completely useless meetings over the course of my life, my spidey sense tells me this must have been one of those, and everyone in the room was there for the photo op while they listened to Joe drone on for at least the fifth time about what he told Winston Churchill. Here's a hint of what must actually have happened:

The president knew a massive attack was in the works against our only ally in the Middle East, and he decided to go to the beach. Sure, Biden returned Saturday, but we’re back to these silly games from a most unserious administration.

. . . An unprecedented attack is about to happen against one of our allies, and this guy goes to the beach. Is it arrogance? Is it stupidity? Is it senility? Or is it a combination of all three?

But if you look at the actual timeline of the attack, which I discussed in yesterday's post, if the drones and missiles began to arrive in Israel at about 2:00 AM their time on Saturday, then the hundred or more slow-moving drones in particular had to have left Iran some hours earlier and had to have been tracked by US satellites from the start, which means Biden had to have been aware that things were under way before lunchtime in Washington, but it wasn't until 5:15 PM on Friday that he left for the beach -- just as, according to the timeline in my post yesterday, those drones were actually arriving in Israeli airspace, although US and Jordanian resources had already been shooting them down before they got that far.

So Joe knew exactly what would happen well before he left for the beach, and it was indeed happening as he was stepping onto Marine One to make the trip. But then, why did he have to cut the trip short the next morning? One theory might be that his handlers finally convinced him that it would be a bad look for him to stay in Rehoboth while this was going on, but I would almost say that the early return was scripted into the whole charade from the start, Joe races back to handle the crisis and avert World War III. By holding a useless meeting in the Sit Room. Right.

A story in the Jerusalem Post supports the idea that this whole thing is kabuki:

Iran informed Turkey in advance of its planned operation against Israel, a Turkish diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday, adding that Washington had conveyed to Tehran via Ankara that any action it took had to be "within certain limits."

. . . The Turkish source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan had spoken to both his US and Iranian counterparts in the past week to discuss the planned Iranian operation, adding Ankara had been made aware of possible developments.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke to Fidan to make clear that escalation in the Middle East was not in anyone's interest.

"Iran informed us in advance of what would happen. Possible developments also came up during the meeting with Blinken, and they (the US) conveyed to Iran through us that this reaction must be within certain limits," the source said.

"In response, Iran said the reaction would be a response to Israel's attack on its embassy in Damascus and that it would not go beyond this."

One of my favorite contrarians is a YouTuber on the channel Romanian Tvee. Here's his take on the whole attack narrative:

At 1:24, he says,

When it comes to the Middle East, you got to understand that they do business a little bit differently than Western nations, especially when it comes to international politics. Like first of all, you need to understand how the nations are structured. You have the people at the top, the inner circle of oligarchs, and then you have everyone else. And the people at the top, they want to live normal lives. They want to drive their expensive cars, they want to live in their expensive mansions, they just, you know, want to enjoy the luxuries of life, but unfortunately in order to do that, they have to oppress everyone else, because it's a dictatorship.

. . . So they are kept in a level of ingorance that is far deeper than what's happening here in the West or in China. And a lot of the things that happen there are very masculine in nature, like their societies are also very patriarchal. So what they want the most is to see strength, right, like even though they are being oppressed by the oligarchy, they want the oligarchy to display strength, like that is the thing that they admire. Even if that strength is used against them, it doesn't matter, they want to see that their leaders are powerful.

. . . When you have something like it happened with Israel and the embassy, if you're the leader who just wants to drive the expensive cars and have a good life, you need to show the display of strength, because otherwise, you get uprisings, and it's not the type of uprisings that you get, oh, the truckers in Canada, or oh, look, some people are protesting in the streets, no, you can get, like generals that are switching sides, you can get the military doing an uprising, or you can get even assassinated.

. . . When something like this happens, the leaders do not want the conflict, they do not want war, because if they actually get war, then they don't get to drive around their expensive cars, they don't get to live their luxurious lives, but at the same time, they need to show the strength. So what they do is like this display, oh, we fired a hundred rockets, but they usually like phone the people they're firing the rockets at, and thy're telling them, yeah, by the way, clear those military bases, make sure that the airfield is empty by the time we fire it.

. . . A lot of these things are for show. A lot of these things are for the public.

This is insightful and correct, and it applies completely to the Iranian drone attack over the weekend. It was scripted by all parties, or maybe we should say by all parties except maybe the Israelis. The problem for the Israelis is that the October 7 attack wasn't a charade. Over 1000 Israeli civilians were killed, often after being raped and tortured. So Israel hit a consulate in Lebanon and killed the Iranian general who organized the attack. That wasn't a charade, either.

Biden's position is now pretty clearly that everyone's had their little kabuki, the Iranians have made a pro forma drone attack, we've had our big meeting in the Sit Room, and Israel now should shut up and play the game, no further reprisals, especially no reprisals that actually accomplish anything and make the Iranians at the top want to make another feckless show of strength. Let's all go back to driving our expensive cars and living the good life.

I don't think Israel works that way, even if Joe does. Israel is tired of that game; every few years, it costs real money and real lives to play by those rules. This is what Joe doesn't seem to grasp, and it's at the heart of the problem.

Very Quick Early Reaction To Iran's Attack On Israel

Here's my puzzle. According to this link, the first wave of Iranian drones and missiles arrived in Israel about 2:00 AM Saturday morning Israel time, which would have been 5:00 PM Friday night on the US East Coast. I spend a lot of my day on my computer, and I check the news a lot. The only headlines I saw all day yesterday (Saturday) was breathless reports that an Iranian drone strike could happpen -- but as far as the US was concerned, the strike had already taken place, early Friday evening on the East Coast, midafternoon Friday on the West Coast.

Yet the first reports that it had already taken place didn't appear, at least for me, until this morning, Sunday, nearly two days later. Nothing yesterday afternoon on YouTube, nothing on the conservative aggregators, nothing on Real Clear Politics. By midafternoon in Washington, nearly a day after the attacks began, the White House didn't quite know what to say:

CORRECTION: Report that Biden will address the nation false - CNN pic.twitter.com/Q84Cwdvhqm

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 13, 2024

The explanation is what I've believed for a couple of years: the holidays extend through each other, spring break extends to Memorial Day, probably the toughest stretch of the year, but then Memorial Day extends to Juneteenth, which extends to July 4, which extends to Labor Day, which extends to Indigenous Peoples Day, and so forth. Conservative writers and reporters are in on the scam as much as anyone else.

At 9:30 AM yesterday, Kaitlan Collins posted,

President Biden, who is currently in Rehoboth Beach, will return to the White House this afternoon to “consult with his national security team about events in the Middle East,” the admin says.

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) April 13, 2024

As of 9:30 AM on the East Coast, the whole attack, I would guess, had been over for some hours, as it would have been 16:30, or 4:30 PM, at that time in Israel, which is 7 hours ahead. The big National Security Council meeting that took place that afternoon was over yesterday's papers.

There isn't a single person in this picture that gives me even the slightest bit of confidence. Not one.

They can't even get the proper drug cocktail mixed in time for Biden to address the nation tonight. https://t.co/6drwf4RlHU

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) April 13, 2024

My biggest problem at this point is that long-form reporting and opinion writing has been out to lunch for at least the past year. Short-form talking heads on news reports and YouTube have been losing credibility since early 2023 when the Ukraine war turned south and the retired generals' predictions of driving Putin out of Crimea came to naught.

Here's a Fox report time stamped 3:25, but whether that was 3:25 PM yeterday or 3:25 AM today, I can't tell:

It doesn't matter if it was midafternoon yesterday or early this morning, the voice says breathlessly,

So the drones are on their way from Iran, apparently some have already been engaged, possibly or maybe probably, shot down. . .

No, this was concluded the night before.

Everyone's still on spring break, and they're already getting ready for Memorial Day. It doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum anyone's on, they're all coasting.

Oh, NO! The Stormy Daniels Hush Money Trial Starts Next Week!

Even writers for respectable media who are mildly supportive of Donald Trump, like Byron York of the Washington Examiner, are starting to worry:

THE ANTI-TRUMP DREAM COME TRUE. Barring some last-second surprise, on Monday a dream will come true for the Democrats, resistance warriors, Never Trumpers, and lawfare specialists who have hoped for years to put former President Donald Trump on trial. It finally happens Monday in a courtroom in Manhattan.

Many legal experts, and not just those on the Right, have said the case against Trump is weak. But that doesn’t really matter. The fact is, Trump will be on trial, charged with 34 dubious felonies, and a jury in deep-blue Manhattan will likely find him guilty of something. That’s the point. After this trial, if things turn out like Trump’s enemies hope, every single Democratic reference to the former president, every single political ad, every party utterance will refer to Trump as convicted felon Donald Trump.

Even Alan Dershowitz seems slightly off the mark here:

At about 12:47, he says,

Donald Trump may very well be convicted, starting next week, the case will take a while because the jury has to be selected, but Donald Trump may very well be convicted of a non-crime. What he is charged with is simply not a crime. It's not a federal crime; it could have been a federal crime; the federal government didn't think it was, and they didn't prosecute him for it; it's not a state crime, and if it is a state crime, it's a misdemeanor, and what the prosecution did is that they cobbled together a federal crime which isn't really a crime and a state crime which isn't a crime, and they created what I call the Alexander Hamilton crime. Remember Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to Mrs Reynolds to make sure that she didn't disclose their consensual affair, exactly the same as the Donald Trump situation, and I doubt that Alexander Hamilton put that on his forms. He was the Secretary of the Treasury! But I doubt that anyone in American history has ever been charged with failing to disclose hush money payments on a corporate or even a government form.

This is odd, because although Dershowitz is a legal scholar, he's also a brilliant media strategist (I note that as of that YouTube from this past Tuesday, he appears to be back in Israel). A much more apposite case is one he's discussed himself recently, and I quoted him here over that Chicago Seven case:

I was a consultant on the case, because there were free speech issues, and the trial turned into a farce, because they had picked a judge named Julius Hoffman, who was a very right-wing jurist to preside over the trial, and he hated these radical defendants, and the radical defendants hated him, and Abby Hoffman came up with a tactic, he said basically to his lawyers and everybody else, "Look, we can't win this case in front of Judge Julius Hoffman. Let's see if we can go about getting it reversed on appeal, and the best way to do it is to provoke this judge, he has a short fuse, and provoke him into making error after error."

It seems to me that Trump and his attorneys are following a twofold strategy not much different from Abby Hoffman's: they've been filing motion after motion in recent weeks, in the view of the media aimed at delaying the trial, but I'm sure Trump and his attorneys are fully aware that the game is rigged, and there isn't going to be any delay. The motions are meant to build a record for post-conviction appeal -- the attorneys are professionally obligated to do this, but they're also fully aware that the intent of the trial is to convict Trump of something -- anythng -- before the election, and the appeals will be after the election. So all their motions are pro forma and not important to Trump's actual strategy.

But Abby Hoffman's strategy wasn't just to build an appellate record, it was to turn the trial itself into a circus. This was brilliantly successful, and it worked right away, no need to wait for the appeals court. It turned Hoffman and his codefendants into celebrities -- their celebrity status even outshone their status as martyrs, which was entirely secondary. Trump is a brilliant media strategist himself -- he has even Dershowitz's grudging admiration.

The upcoming trial is likely to put Trump in a perfect storm of media attention, with tabloid-style allegations of an affair with a porn star, but with the added feature of additional lowlifes like Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti doing what comes naturally, namely, trying to extort Trump. We had a preview of this with E Jean Carroll. By that point, the public had tuned out the legal issues and focused on the circus, the narcissistic old woman who fantasized about being raped by Donald Trump. He kept edging up in the polls throughout the case. The media won't be able to turn their attention away from this case, either, which is the sort of environment in which Trump thrives. Abby Hoffman could have cooked this up himself.

As far as anyone knows, Joe Biden was the one who thought up the lawfare strategy. How's that been working out for him so far? The problem with this case for the Democrats is that nothing can go wrong -- but they're relying on a wonky cast of characters for whom much has already gone wrong. Frankly, I can't wait for the circus to start.

More On Joe From Obama's Staff

Yesterday I ran across yet another set of remarks from a former Obama-era staffer who'd gotten to know Joe as vice president.

Mike McCormick, who served as Joe Biden’s stenographer traveling with him around the world including to Ukraine, recently published a book revealing what he saw, which included criminal activity in regards to the Burisma kickback scheme. “The Case to Impeach and Imprison Joe Biden” lays out probably the most comprehensive account ever written about the scheme.

I'm less concerned about Burisma, because it really isn't figuring into the current campaign, and I'm still puzzled that the amounts of money involved are so trivial, especially when spread around among Hunter and maybe a dozen other family members. A vice president ought to be getting more than a million here and a million there -- how can this be worth his time? That's the really interesting question, and if we ever get an anmswer, it'll say a lot more about the roots of his character. Is he a combination of kinda greedy but really dumb?

McCormick's remarks on Biden's overall persona seem consistent with those of Obama advisers and cabinet members we've already seen:

“When I worked for him, I thought Joe was harmless — egotistical, buffoonish, and unpresidential, but harmless,” he said.

Here's a problem worth working through: current conventional wisdom claims Joe has been in decline at least since his time as vice president, but this guy Mike McCormick served as his stenographer and traveled with him around the world -- and his impression as of ten or 15 years ago was that he was "egotistical, buffoonish, and unpresidential", pretty much what we have now. But if this was the case, how was he ever sold as presidential material?

After a brief web search, from what I can see, Joe was consistently listed as the front runner as of August 2019. There were several dozen candidates in the early running, including Bernie Sanders, Mike Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Tulsi Gabbard, John Kerry, Beto O'Rourke, Elizabetgh Warren, and, of course, Kamala Harris. NPR's recap of Biden's path to the nomination in 2020 said this:

What people do remember is that Biden began the current presidential cycle as the Democrats' putative front-runner, that he stumbled along the way and nearly washed out early. The Real Clear Politics average of polls showed him leading — but not dominating — the field throughout 2019. In a field that at one point teemed with more than 20 other hopefuls, Biden's polling rarely surpassed 30%.

. . . As the debates ground on and impeachment proceedings in Washington diverted media attention, Biden struggled to break away from the field. When his main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, had a heart attack in October, some Sanders backers gravitated to Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and other candidates, not Biden.

By the end of the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3, Biden found himself an also-ran, just as in 2008. It was upstart candidate Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., who shared the winner's circle with Sanders. Biden finished fourth.

But Sanders won primaries until South Carolina, when James Clyburn, the highest ranking black member of Congress as the House majority whip, announced his endorsement of Biden. According to NPR, this changed the momentum.

After Nevada, Sanders had been poised to win most of the 14 states voting in the March 3rd Super Tuesday contests. But South Carolina shifted the momentum. Sanders won in California, Colorado, Utah and his home state of Vermont. Biden swept the rest, including Texas and five other Southern states where he won at least 55% of votes among African Americans.

The shift in momentum dimmed Sanders' hopes for recovery in states where he had done well in 2016 — such as Missouri, Michigan and Washington. After Wisconsin joined that list on April 7, Sanders dropped out. Within a week, he endorsed Biden.

It appears that the lizard people Democrat establishment thought Sanders was too far left -- or at least, he seemed too far left and threatened to give up the game -- to succeed against Trump. In hindsight, it looks like there was never mich daylight between Biden and other putatively farther-left candidates like Sanders or Warren, which is a question someone needs to pursue.

As best anyone can tell, the lizard people then conducted a campaign based on a strategy of keeping Joe out of the public eye as much as possible while portraying him as a moderate. At the same time, COVID restrictions kept Trump from holding rallies, which reduced his visibility. But it looks like Biden's weakness as a candidate was fully apparent to insiders as of 2020, which may be behind more recent moves as reported by Politico last week:

President Joe Biden’s campaign is bringing on a slate of new pollsters to lead its number-crunching operation.

The group, which features several pollsters involved in efforts around Democrats’ stronger-than-expected 2022 midterms, reflect a continued shift to broaden Biden’s polling operation beyond the team that worked on his first successful campaign against former President Donald Trump. The moves were shared first with POLITICO.

. . . The expansion of Biden’s polling team comes at a complicated moment, given Biden’s stubbornly low approval ratings and pollsters’ struggles to measure the electorate accurately in the past two presidential races.

This may also reflect the lizard people's discomfort at Joe's, and now Dr Jill's, insistence that Joe is up in the polls, and the media is just reporting the wrong ones. The problem overall is that Joe is Caesar, which isn't much different from the problem the Romans had, which was that Caesar was Caesar.