Weekly News Roundup – 1 March 2024
Does Google have a reality problem? Is it really politics as usual? To hell with it, I’m having a donut.
This Week’s News
100,000 people in Tuesday’s Michigan primary cast “uncommitted” ballots – Biden won the primary easily with 81% of the vote but the 13% who cast “uncommitted” ballots imply that he does not have the support of everyone in his party. Whether these people will stay away in November is unknown, but they should concern those overseeing Biden’s reelection campaign.
Google AI tool’s controversial responses ‘completely unacceptable’ –Google has suspended use of its Gemini AI tool after it embarrassingly “declining to depict white people” and inserted women and people of color when asked to produce historical figures (ex. the Founding Fathers) or when prompted to create images of Vikings, Nazis, and the Pope. Google CEO Sundar Pichai has stated that their “teams have been working around the clock to address these issues.” Shares of Google Alphabet, the parent company of Google, are down 2.61% since this issue came to light.
Russian military's criteria for nuclear strike – I realize that this may be alarming, but I assure you it isn’t. The fact that Russia has had nuclear weapons for decades means that they’ve always had criteria for using them. The sole difference now is that we may actually know what their “triggers” are for the use of their tactical weapons. Specifically, these include “an enemy incursion on Russian territory,” “destruction of 20% of Russia's strategic ballistic missile submarines," “the destruction of three or more large surface warships, three airfields, 30% of its nuclear-powered attack submarines,” or a "simultaneous hit on main and reserve coastal command centers." The global situation regarding the use of nuclear weapons has not changed, only our knowledge of it has.
Trump is disqualified from Illinois ballot – Illinois becomes the third state after Colorado and Maine to attempt similar efforts by citing the 14th Amendment insurrection clause. The US Supreme Court is scheduled to make a decision by the end of June whether Trumps “alleged role in the January 6 Capitol riot” is grounds for prosecuting him for election interference. While it is understandable why some would wish to take this action, if removing Trump from the ballot is permitted it will likely lead to more efforts to prosecute political advisories in the future rather than leaving these decisions to the voting public.
Who defines “hate?” - Once again, the Liberals try to control what people say for our own good – Under the guise of “protecting children,” the Liberal government is once again attempting to pass a law that outlines “hate speech.” To label this effort as misguided or the bill as imperfect would be to understate the issue. Problems include:
No clear definition of “hate” - As I’ve written before laws that attempt to outlaw hate ultimately restrict free speech as the definition of “hate” is subjective meaning that the definition will ultimately come down to who is in power. According to the act hatred “means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” Crystal clear, right?
Assuming guilt rather than innocence – The bill would move Canada one step closer to rolling out a “future crimes” division by allowing the government to “impose house arrest on someone who is feared to commit a hate crime in the future – even if they have not yet done so already.”
Eliminating the need for proof – for hundreds of years a key tenet of Western jurisprudence has been that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, however this rule will be cast aside under this law as “complaints” will be directed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission rather than the courts.” “The ‘balance of probabilities’ that a violation has occurred will replace evidence.
Finally, in a story that should be filed firmly in the “life’s not fair” category, researchers from the University of California-San Diego have found “that men with a larger abdominal muscle area have a greater risk of heart disease” but that the same does not hold for women. My advice? Guys, have a donut. Ladies, a few more crunches wouldn’t kill you.
What I’m Reading
Are ‘Islamists in Charge of Britain’? - Konstantin Kisin examines the impact that the rise in threats by Islamist extremists is having on British Parliament concluding that if threats “are directed against elected MPs, that is an attempt to subvert our democracy and should be treated as such, with severe sentences. Foreign nationals who engage in, call for, fund, or glorify violence, religious hatred, or other violent extremism should be deported immediately.” I couldn’t agree more.
South African Lawfare at The Hague – Over at Quillette, Norman J.W. Goda, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Florida, examines the Republic of South Africa’s accusation that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Goda finds that South Africa’s application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague less than compelling arguing that it lacks “hard evidence and a careful reading of legal precedent.”
Twin Peeks – Over at Literary Review of Canada, Tara Henley reviews Naomi Klein’s new book “Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World” in which Klein attempts to understand the COVID conspiracies on the right but ultimately fails due in large part to her failure to examine life outside of the leftwing bubble that she’s created for herself.
My Podcast Recommendation(s) of the Week
This week’s recommendation touches on a topic that I’ve written about on several occasions, how activists twist words for their own purposes. In this podcast, Quillette host Jonathan Kay interviews Norman J.W. Goda, the Norman and Irma Braman Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Center for Jewish Studies, University of Florida. Goda explains to Kay why he finds South Africa’s claims against Israel at the International Court of Justice unpersuasive.
Quillette Podcast - Is Israel Really Committing Genocide in Gaza?
On the "disqualification from ballot" question: A recent law review article on Sec 3 of the 14th amendment by Professors Baude and Paulsen makes the case that disqualification applies.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
The subsequent oral arguments (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-719) strongly suggest the court is likely to reverse the Colorado decision. They will likely say Congress needs to pass legislation to flesh out what constitutes rebellion and who has authority to keep people off the ballot, if any.
There is the concern about disqualifying opponents as a matter of routine. On the other hand, applying the rule of law faithfully to all comers, high and low, makes the process more robust imo. Any one excluded has due process rights to get back on the ballot. If that process, in turn, is not trusted we have bigger problems on our hands.