The Netanyahu Plunge

Oh, quite the irony. As we learned Wednesday morning (Israel Daylight Time)

A sharp public rupture broke out within Israel's cabinet Wednesday after National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir's humiliation video of detained flotilla activists triggered an international firestorm, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar both publicly condemning their own colleague.

Netanyahu issued a rare public rebuke of his own minister: "Israel has the full right to prevent provocative flotillas of Hamas terror supporters from entering our territorial waters and reaching Gaza. However, the manner in which Minister Ben Gvir treated the flotilla activists is not in line with the values and norms of the State of Israel. I have instructed the relevant authorities to deport the provocateurs as quickly as possible."

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar was more scathing.

Unfortunately, this disapproval by Netanyahu of aiding Hamas comes more than three years late. In an opinion piece printed by The Times of Israel the day after Hamas' terrorist attack on 10/7/23, Tal Schneider explained

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

Nettanyahu also worked with Hamas to increase work permits for laborers from Gaza while

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

Schneider added

Additionally, since 2014, Netanyahu-led governments have practically turned a blind eye to the incendiary balloons and rocket fire from Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel has allowed suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash to enter Gaza through its crossings since 2018, in order to maintain its fragile ceasefire with the Hamas rulers of the Strip.

Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015.

According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state....

Bolstered by this policy, Hamas grew stronger and stronger until Saturday, Israel’s “Pearl Harbor,” the bloodiest day in its history — when terrorists crossed the border, slaughtered hundreds of Israelis and kidnapped an unknown number under the cover of thousands of rockets fired at towns throughout the country’s south and center.

The country has known attacks and wars, but never on such a scale in a single morning.

One thing is clear: The concept of indirectly strengthening Hamas — while tolerating sporadic attacks and minor military operations every few years — went up in smoke Saturday.

Netanyahu knew, or should have known, what might have been coming because, as Schneider noted

Just a few days ago, Assaf Pozilov, a reporter for the Kan public broadcaster, tweeted the following: “The Islamic Jihad organization has started a noisy exercise very close to the border, in which they practiced launching missiles, breaking into Israel and kidnapping soldiers"...

Hamas became stronger and used the auspices of peace that Israelis so longed for as cover for its training, and hundreds of Israelis have paid with their lives for this massive omission.

The terror inflicted on the civilian population in Israel is so enormous that the wounds from it will not heal for years, a challenge compounded by the dozens abducted into Gaza.

The columnist was wrong about one thing, though. She maintained "judging by the way Netanyahu has managed Gaza in the last 13 years, it is not certain that there will be a clear policy going forward."

The Prime Minister has been very clear about his policy over the past 31+ months. It has been a disastrous on. Investigating the flotilla fiasco and punishing individuals responsible for misbehavior would be a small, yet significant, step in the right direction. 

Nonetheseless, as writer, author, and foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan wrote this past week

The Iran war may end up as the single most devastating blow to Israel’s security in its brief history. On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war. It will exercise leverage with dozens of the richest nations in the world, all of which will have an acute interest in keeping Iran happy. They will be unlikely to take Israel’s side in any conflict that it has with Tehran or with its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, because Iran will have the means to punish them if they do. Israel will emerge more isolated than it has been at any time in its history—and not least from its only reliable protector, the United States. When Trump turns his back on Israel, as he must do to implement this policy, MAGA will gladly follow. The bipartisan anti-Israel consensus in the United States will grow and harden.

Netanyahu denounced Ben-Gvir for actions "not in line with the values and norms of the State of Israel." treated the flotilla activists is not in line with the values and norms of the State of Israel."   The Foreign Minister said of the National Security Minister "you are not the face of Israel."  Regrettably, under this coalition government, Israel's security has been weakened and its values and "face" severely degraded.

Share |

Repetition of Intent

I'm not a big fan of the "everything Donald Trump does is a diversion" theory.  Yet, while once is insignificant, twice sparks curiosity, thrice is just too obvious to ignore

On May 4, President Trump hosted a summit for more than 130 small business executives to celebrate National Small Buseiness week. He stated   to hundreds of small business owners at the White House's small business summit on May 4, Donald stated

When I get out of office in, let's say, eight or nine years from now, I'll be able to use it. I'll be able to use it myself." He was referring  to legislation that would allow companies to write off spending on new infrastructure, a policy he said would help business and, by his telling, might still benefit him years from now.

An Indian news website notes that, fifteen days later

US President Donald Trump has once again stirred political debate with remarks suggesting he could one day run for prime minister in Israel, claiming he currently enjoys “99 percent” support in the country.

Trump made the comments while discussing his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ongoing tensions involving Iran and the West Asia. Referring to his popularity in Israel, Trump joked that after completing his current term, he might consider entering Israeli politics.

“I’m right now at 99% in Israel. I could run for prime minister, so maybe after I do this, I’ll go to Israel and run for prime minister,” Trump said during remarks that quickly drew widespread attention online.

My goodness, that "joke" was funny! No, it was not a joke, though Trump wasn't being entirely serious. There are appoximately 3,210 reasons Donald would not run for prime minister of Israel. There also is one reason- diversion- that it was a tactically wise remark.

And one day later, in New London, Connecticut

Trump was speaking at the US Coast Guard Academy's 145th graduating class at Cadet Memorial Field when he discussed 11 icebreaker ships which have been ordered for the US military.

Trump said: "We're making, right now, currently under construction, we have 11. Beautiful.

“And I said, 'Come on, when's the first one coming?' They said, 'In 28'. I said, 'I'm going to be here in 28'.”

The president added: “Maybe I'll be here in 32, too. I don't know. Maybe I will. But I'm going to be here in 28. And I'll tell you, I say, that's great, because I'm going to be there."

This anti-Trump, former GOP member of the House of Represenatives is correct, as he typically is about the President:

So young people in America will now think it’s perfectly normal for a President to give a divisive, political, partisan address to our men & women in uniform. We’ve so normalized his divisiveness, his indecency, his busting of all institutions & norms, his corruption, & his… https://t.co/QXJo9e7Bbf

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 20, 2026

But this tweeter is only half-right when he comments 

Trump tells Coast Guard Cadets that he may illegally still be president in 2032.  "I said come on when's the first one coming? They said in '28. I said I'm gonna be here in '28 maybe I'll be here in '32 too."

There is absolutely no excuse for this.  This is about as unAmerican as it gets.

Un-Ameican, sure. However, it would not be illegal for Donald Trump to be President beyond January 20, 2029. It would be illegal- unconstitutional, actually- only for him to be elected more than twice. The 22nd Amendment reads "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."

So if we're concerned that Donald Trump may serve more than two terms as President, we'll have to rely on something other than the U.S. Constitution, which is a very dicey thing to rely on nowadays, anyway. Donald Trump may not be around three years from now- but he doesn't intend to go away quietly.

Share |

Boosting Mainland China

In the infamous June, 2024 debate which ultimately led to the withdrawal from the presidential race of President, Joe Biden, Donald J. Trump claimed

We now have the largest deficit in the history of our country under this guy. We have the largest deficit with China. He gets paid by China. He's a Manchurian candidate. he gets money from China. We have to- I think he's afraid to deal with something. Buit you notice he never took out my tariffs becasue we bring in so much money with the tariffs that I imposed on China. he never took them away.Can't, because it's too much money. 

A few weels after Donald was (re-) elected, we were reminded

One of Trump's key promises on the 2024 campaign trail ws imposing 60% tariffs on  all Chinese imports to the U.S., a drastic increase from when his previous administration raised tariffs on most Chinese products to 25%. Trump has said that tariffs "are the greatest thing ever invented," and will protect american manufacturing and businesses. The president-elect also promised to revoke China's trade status, which was meant to provide mutual advantages such as low tariffs and other trade advantages.

God is in the details, and whatever the benefits of a less China-friendly policy than we had been accustomed to, the tariffs of the second Trump term have proven economically disastrous. But enough about  the economy! 

Recently, David Frum interviewed Phillips O'Brien, a military historian and professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews.  Frum asked his guest

If the war ends with some kind of armistice, where Trump gets some piece of paper with the word nuclear on it, Iran has effective control over the Strait of Hormuz—which I suppose it had before, but now it’s really proven that it can do it—and a lot of damage to Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s missile program, some damage in turn to the American forces, who’s the winner of that war?

O'Brien responded, "the winner of that war is China" and when asked to explain, stated

Well, because, basically, the Chinese will come out of this as a far more influential force in the region. The United States will come out looking much weakened, with a degraded military, an inability to get what it wants through military force, and looking capricious and, in some ways, unable to assert itself over Iran. The Iranian regime will not come out of it in great shape. It’s been damaged. It has been damaged militarily. Certainly, the Iranian people will be the losers ’cause they will suffer a great deal of oppression, one assumes, coming out of that. But the Iranians would have survived, and the other regimes in the area are gonna have to cut some kind of deals with them. But the Chinese are just sitting there. They are gonna be seen [as] a bastion of stability. They’ll get a huge amount of reconstruction contracts. Their ally in Iran will still be there. And one assumes that a lot of the other powers in the region will want good relations with China going forward.

Regardless of whether the U.S. secures concessions from Iran, China will emerge the victor from the conflict, the military historian Phillips O’ Brien tells @davidfrum: “They are going to be seen as a bastion of stability.”

Watch The David Frum Show: https://t.co/KTgrYBoU1p pic.twitter.com/T1gxFL7pU5

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 20, 2026

I don't know whether President Trump "gets paid by China," as he so dishonestly claimed of President Biden. And he's not quite as owned by President Xi Jinping as he is by President Putin, though he was sliced and diced by the Chinese leader last week earlier this month in Beijing.

Mainland China is the country which could use regime change. Obviously, that was not going to happen but Trump's elective war against Iran has made Beijing and Russia stronger and the USA weaker. Imagine that (militarily) Iran loses a campaign but then refuses to concede and, unfortunately, comes out the stronger in the long run. It's what apparently is happening, a scenario which Donald Trump, with his experience, should have considered before he began this disastrous war.

Share |

Saving the World by Destroying It?

If you don't have the time to watch this video of a portion of the commencement speech of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt at the University of Arizona, here is a great summary:

Incredible he essentially says all throughout "ask not what AI can do for you, but what you can do for AI", telling them AI is part of their lives no matter what they choose to do, yet his thesis is that the future is not already written for them. Complete cognitive dissonance.

 

 

This is incredible. Artificial intelligence getting booed out of the stadium in any commencement speech it’s mentioned. Maybe telling college students AI was taking their jobs wasn’t the best strategy. Must watch —> pic.twitter.com/35UMSz5T5a

— Alex Kantrowitz (@Kantrowitz) May 17, 2026

It's not only a matter of jobs, though a whole lot of people will lose them and income inequality is likely to skyrocket. It may be an issue of planetary survival.  A study from Kings College of London and led by Professor Kenneth Payne of the Department of Defense Studies

examined how large language models (LLMs) navigate simulated nuclear crises. As militaries and security institutions increasingly experiment with AI-assisted analysis and wargaming, understanding how such systems reason under pressure is becoming increasingly critical.

Three leading AI models – GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Flash – were placed in a tournament of 21 simulated nuclear crisis scenarios. Across 329 turns of play, the models generated approximately 780,000 words of structured reasoning – more than the combined length of War and Peace and The Iliad.

All 21 crisis games featured nuclear signaling by at least one side, and 95% involved mutual nuclear signaling. However, while models readily threatened nuclear action, crossing the tactical nuclear threshold was less common, and ‘strategic’ full-scale nuclear war was rare.

Rather than focusing on outcomes alone, the study made AI decision-making processes visible. Each turn followed a three-phase architecture: reflection (situational assessment), forecasting (predicting the opponent’s move), and decision (public signal and private action). This innovative “reflection–forecast–decision” structure enabled researchers to analyse the AI’s deception, credibility management, prediction accuracy and self-awareness in detail.

Describing the results as “sobering”, Professor Payne said the study offers a rare insight into emerging forms of “machine psychology” under nuclear crisis conditions.

For all three models, one striking pattern stood out: none of the models ever chose accommodation or surrender. Nuclear threats also rarely produced compliance; more often, crossing nuclear thresholds provoked counter-escalation rather than retreat. The models tended to treat nuclear weapons as tools of compellence rather than purely as instruments of deterrence.

The study challenges simple assumptions that AI systems will naturally default to cooperative or “safe” outcomes. It also challenges structural theories that emphasise material power alone: in simulations, willingness to escalate often mattered more than raw capability.

One of the most policy-relevant findings concerns temporal framing, or ‘the deadline effect.’

In open-ended scenarios, GPT-5.2 appeared relatively restrained. Yet when explicit deadlines were introduced – creating a “now-or-never” dynamic – the model escalated sharply and, in some cases, climbed to the highest nuclear thresholds.

This suggests that evaluating model behaviour in a single scenario may be insufficient. A model that appeared comparatively cautious under one framing became markedly more aggressive under another.

The models tended to treat nuclear weapons as tools of compellence rather than purely as instruments of deterrence.

Yet, Eric Schmidt in Tucson boasted (at 1:31 of the video) "the question is not whether AI will save the world. It will." President Trump already has signed an executive order preventing states from regulating artificial intelligence. And a famous Pennsylvania Democrat claims his Party is consumed by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and if the President "came out for ice cream and lazy Sundays, we would hate it" (and that this is a bad thing). He, and  might want to take a look at this and ponder "what could possibly go wrong"?

Share |

Not So Ambiguous

On Tuesday in Beijing, President Trump was asked to what degree the economic pain of the American people was motivating him to make a deal with China, and Donald responded "not even a little bit. The only ting that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon."  Michael Smerconish vigrously defended that remark and commented also

Arguably, the bigger story was Trump's revelation was that Xi had directly asked Trump whether the US would defend Taiwan if China attacked.

Think about that for a moment. The leader of China flat-out asked. The question alone tells you everything about where Beijing's head is. If Xi really said that to Trump, it suggests that Xi is looking to invade Taiwan and he's looking for a green light from the United States to do so. That's a monumental admission of an intent to go to war and it's an undiplomatic, none of Xi's business question to Trump. According to The New York Times, Trump gave Xi no response: "I said I don't talk sbout those things."

That's not a dodge. That's not a weakness. That's a longstanding U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity and the only answer that keeps China guessing.

And still critics pounced again. Taiwan itself issued a statement reaffirming Trump's longstandingcomitment to their defense. But what kind of diplomacy would it have been had Trump, just after leaving China, just having been solicitous of Xi's involvement ending the war in Iran, instead said "yes, we're going to arm Taiwan to the teeth."  It would have destroyed any prospect of achieving his larger objective.

            .

Smerconish falsely believes that the President's "larger objective" was gaining assistance from Beijing on the Iran war when Trump's primary objective was pecuniary. No matter. When Donald was interviewed Friday evening by Brett Baier, fresh off getting his rear handed to him he told the Fox News' journalist

When you look at the odds, China is a very, very powerful, big country. That's a very small island. Think of it- it's 95 miles away. We're 9500 miles away.That's a little bit of a difficult problem... Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit.

Trump promised Xi he would serve up Taiwan on a platter. And so it begins… https://t.co/VY2zYKgJpa

— Luis Moreno (@LuisMorenolg) May 16, 2026

"Taiwan would be very smart to coll it a little bit (and) China would be very smart to cool it a little bit" is a piece of moral equivalence which would be condemned if any other President would have stated it. None has, though, because it undermines the traditional American policy of strategic ambiguity as pertains to the American response if Mainland China were to invade the Republic of China. The rationale behind strategic ambiguity is that the  USA opposes invasion of Taiwan by the Commu- I mean, by China- and thus might or might not respond were it to occur.

Trump added of a proposed weapons sale to our ally, "I may do it. I may not do it." The ambivalence speaks volumes.

The United States has aircrft which can travel 9,000 miles. What it does not have is a President willing to be similtaneiously clear and ambiguous. The policy of the USA should remain as it has been or a little closer to full support for the island nation. It should not be to scold the democratic nation of Taiwan nor, with a metaphorical nod and a  wink, to  suggest that the nation is so far away that the military which Donald Trump brags about could not respond. Xi might as well have been told "have your way with that pesky little problem of yours."

This is not a little matter, nor one of simple fairness. In February, The New York Times noted that Taiwan makes 90% of the world's high-end computer chips and

In secret briefings held in Washington and Silicon Valley, national security officials warned executives from companies like Apple, Advanced Micro Devices and Qualcomm that China was making plans to retake Taiwan, which Beijing has long considered a breakaway territory. A Chinese blockade of Taiwan, the officials said, could choke the supply of computer chips made on the island and bring the U.S. tech industry to its knees.....

 “The single biggest threat to the world economy, the single biggest point of single failure, is that 97 percent of the high-end chips are made in Taiwan,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, slightly overstating industry estimates. “If that island were blockaded, that capacity were destroyed, it would be an economic apocalypse"...

A confidential report commissioned in 2022 by the Semiconductor Industry Association for its members, which include the largest U.S. chip companies, said cutting the supply of chips from Taiwan would lead to the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. U.S. economic output would plunge 11 percent, twice as much as the 2008 recession. 

The Times added "The collapse would be even more severe for China." That is not a good thing, because the President who clings to zero-sum game probably believes that something bad for another nation- China, in this case- would necessarily be good  And a confrontation between the two nations would be calamitous as "now, more thanever, it has become clear that Taiwan is critical to America's economic survival, especially as artificial intelligence- which is built using chips made in Taiwan- drives the U.S. stock market and fuels economic growth."

This is what Donald Trump "(doesn't) want to talk about"- only he did, and not in a good way. 

Share |

Please, Mr. Trump, No More Winning!

Sadly, Joseph Goebbels is not dead (metaphorically, that is). At :38 in a video on a David Pakman podcast, Anna Kelly, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary, is asked on May 11 by Fox News a question ending in "What does President Trump say today abut these high energy prices"?  She responded

.... Well, look, thee's a ot of confusion now about the state of play with Iran. Let me be clear. Iran has been incredibly decimated mlitarily. their navy is at the bottom of the ocean. Their ballistic missiles are destroyed. Their production facilities are demolished. Now, they're being totally crippled economically by the weight of Operation Ecconomic Fury.

So the President is not in a  rush. He has all his cards at his disposal because he knows Iran is getting weaker and weaker by the day while the United States is getting  stronger and stronger.

Surely, President Trump does have all his cards at his disposal.  The probably for this regime, however, is that Trump has only his cards at his disposal. He does not hold all the cards, nor nearly so.

Iran is getting weaker. However, as The New York Times reported on May 12

The Trump administration’s public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what U.S. intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors, according to classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers and underground facilities.

Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway.

 People with knowledge of the assessments said they show — to varying degrees, depending on the level of damage incurred at the different sites — that the Iranians can use mobile launchers that are inside the sites to move missiles to other locations. In some cases they can launch missiles directly from launchpads that are part of the facilities. Only three of the missile sites along the strait remain totally inaccessible, according to the assessments.

Iran still fields about 70 percent of its mobile launchers across the country and has retained roughly 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile, according to the assessments. That stockpile encompasses both ballistic missiles, which can target other nations in the region, and a smaller supply of cruise missiles, which can be used against shorter-range targets on land or at sea.

Military intelligence agencies have also reported, based on information from multiple collection streams including satellite imagery and other surveillance technologies, that Iran has regained access to roughly 90 percent of its underground missile storage and launch facilities nationwide, which are now assessed to be “partially or fully operational,” the people with knowledge of the assessments said

Kelly is not completely wrong, given that

The Joint assault on Iran by the United States and Israel inflicted considerable damage on Iran's defenses and damaged or destroyed many strategic sites around the country. Many of Iran's senior leaders have been killed and its economy is staggering under the pressures of the war, leaving questins about how long it can sustain its hard line on a negotiated end to the conflict and the halt on nearly all oil tanker traffic and other shiipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Yet, if Donald Trump is holding more cards than are the Iranians, it's news to the latter. Several days ago, Tehran delivered unto Washington via Pakistan a proposal which "included demands for a permanent end to the war on all fronts, compensation for war damages, an end to the U.S. Naval blockade, lifting of sanctions on Iran, and the end to a U.S. ban on Iranian oil sales."  Oh, and Iran would assume control over the Strait of Hormuz.

President Trump rejected the proposal outright, because surrender is not in the cards, as spokesperson Kelly would put it. (If Iran included a proposal which would include a significant boost to Trump's personal profile, now we're talking!). Although the Iranian demands were wildly unrealistic, they still reflect an apparent willingness to see the war through, at least for now.  Abject fear does not seem to have overcome the Iranians, who as with almost everyone is now expecting a military assault from the Trump Administration.

Donald Trump, a veteran of the real estate industry, believes in the zero sum game. He sees Iran getting weaker and might actually believe that means the USA is gaining. But consider that as the Times noted in late April

Before the war with Iran started, American military commanders redirected the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group from the South China Sea to the Middle East. Since then, two Marine Expeditionary Units, each with about 2,200 Marines, have been sent to the Middle East from the Pacific. The Pentagon has also moved sophisticated air defenses from Asia to bolster protection against Iran’s drones and rockets.

As the USA has become embroiled in the Middle East, the nation has left the Asian theater largely undefended. And now Donald Trump has landed in Mainland China, where he will speak to, and hopefully not negotiate with, Xi Jinping.  Hopefully, President Trump will not do there what he has done in the Mideast to America's national interest.

Share |

Show Some Guts

During the "Overtime" segment of Fridat's Real Time With Bill Maher, the panel fielded a question which ended with "how do we help young men," a reference to the current crisis of young men. Maher remarked "we hear this all the time, that youn women re doing better in college, that-"

Senator John Fetterman did a Fetterman, blaming the Democratic Party because there are few questions he won't answer without slamming his Party. If he didn't do so, he wouldn't be John Fetterman. Then Donna Brazile stated.

Overall, ook- I've been a part-time professor for 33 years. There is something going on with young men in our country. They are reticent, many of them are holding back, and we need to address that. But at the same time-

Maher interjected "holding back?" Brazile answered "holding back, because sometimes I think they don't know their place anymore and that's something that men need to decide for themselves." Personally, I wouldn't have saaid "they don't know their place," and I'm not even black. Yet, maybe she simply meant that they are confused, which is a little patronizing but probably accurate, as was her observation that they are "reticent" and "holding back."  However, she continued

But as a woman for decades, centuries, women had to be over-confident just to be qualified. So I don't want men to think that the reason why young men are suffering is because of some woman. No, you men are dealing with what young women had to deal with centuries ago. They'll find their place at the table. Come sit with me sometime and I''ll give you some help.

It's not only the condescension of "come sit with me sometime and I'll give you some help" as in "I am woman. I have the answers you are unable to find on your own." It's also that Brazile is demonstrably wrong. 

Men are not dealing with what young women had to deal with centuries ago. Times have changed. Technology, social media, expectations, family structure, social mores, and a whole lot of other things have made the plight of the young American male unique.  Whether by government, non-profits, or simply women helping women one at a time, women are being a leg up while men are falling behind and need more than one-on-one advice from Donna Brazile. 

Scott Galloway has written and spoken extensively on this. He is wrong that young men should drink more and about guys drinking- he thinks there should be more of it- and that the elderly has too much wealth at the expense of youth. Nonetheless, in last year's Notes on Being a Man, Galloway provided

plenty of statistics to back up his claim that young men really are in trouble. Drawing on research by writers such as Richard Reeves (author of 2022's Of Boys and Men) and his NYU colleague Jonathan Haidt (whose recent book The Anxious Generation sounded the alarm on social media), he sketches out a landscape of rising rates of everything from boys' school suspensions to male unemployment, addic tions, loneliness, and failure to complete college....

Galloway is at pains to point out that he’s not blaming women for men’s problems. “I do not think the answer is to in any way economically disadvantage women,” he says. “I’m not trying to repackage violence here and say that women need to lower their standards such that we don’t have a bunch of angry men out there. I think men need to level up. And I think, as a society, we need to implement more programmes to level up all young people.”

In contrast to Brazile's perspective, he wrote "it's not a battle between men and women. The genders have done a great job convincing themselves it's the other gender's fault. I just don't think that's productive." (The word is sexes. But I'm not being productive.)

Donna Brazile is entitled to her opinion; indeed, her perspective as the woke-y woman appeared to bring a little ideological diversity to the discussion. But then something significant happened.

Aside from Brazile, the members of the panel included Representative Dan Crenshaw, a conservative Republican from Texas who lost the last primary in his re-election bid; Senator Fetterman, the moderate, contrariarn Pennsylvania Democrat; and Mr. Anti-Woke himself, Bill Maher.  Three men, and not an advocate of diversity, equity, and inclusion among them.

Brazile had spoken up for women- good for her- and denigrated young men- not at all good. And none of those three had the courage to call her on it or even to question her remark. When the issue was first raised, Fetterman claimed "part of the Democratic Party became more and more anti-man or describing them as part of the problem or they had toxic traits."  (Since 2011, there have been nine incidents of political violence or attempted political violence in the USA and in nine cases the apparent culprit was a man- no toxic masculinity there!)

Yet, the Pennsylvania senator was silent. Ditto, Crenshaw and Maher. A former Navy Seal (Crenshaw); a former small-town mayor who grabbed a shotgun and chased a black jogger (Fetterman); and the "politically incorrect" longtime comedian and talk-show host. And none of them had the courage to speak up against the invective spewed by a black woman.

This sort of thing is not surprising because it's not uncommon. But if they are not going to challenge an outspoken black woman who obviously disparages young men, they shouldn't pose as champions of men or of young men, as at least Maher and Fetterman do.

One way that could have been accomplished would have been to ask Brazile whether the young men she believes once had it so easy included young black men. Her answer, whatever it would have been, would have proven revelatory.  

Share |