Jeff Bezos Takes on the Media

Cue the outrage. Cue the anguished expressions from journalists, or pseudo-journalists, if you prefer, that their newspapers have chosen not to endorse a candidate for the presidency. 

By now you know that the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today have refused to endorse presidential candidates. Or better, the owners of those papers have exercised owner prerogatives and rejected the notion that they should tell their readers how to vote.

Or else, you can consider that they have chosen not to endorse their obvious choice, Kamala Harris. Clearly, a vote of no confidence in her.

Then again, if you have been reading the biased coverage of the political campaign and do not know where the newspapers stand on the issues, then you probably do not know how to read.

So, a few of its pseudo-journalists quit the Washington Post. As did, a certain number of subscribers. By all accounts owner Jeff Bezos can afford the loss.

But, Bezos, having allowed his newspaper to become a propaganda arm, has suddenly decided that he wanted to return the newspaper, if not to solvency, at least, to objective reporting.

One suspects that the outraged staff members who resigned in protest were working for the paper in order to foist their jejune opinions on an unsuspecting readership, not to report the facts objectively and dispassionately. If they were produced by the biased university system, they do not believe in facts anyway.

But then, there is this. The events underscore the simple fact that the mainstream media has a credibility problem. Most citizens do not believe that these outlets can be trusted to report the news, without fear or favor.

Heather Mac Donald explained it well in the City Journal:

Endorsements are a trivial part of the media’s loss of credibility. The erosion of public trust derives from daily news coverage in which reporters uninhibitedly pass off their own political views as “fact,” editorializing with as much abandon as any editorial writer. It was under Bezos’s tenure that the Washington Post dedicated itself to its anti-Trump Democracy Dies in Darkness crusade. It was under Soon-Shiong that the Los Angeles Times ran one white-privilege mea culpa after another during the George Floyd race riots.

The problem is less the editorials and more the news. Newspapers and even television news programs happily editorialize in their presentation of so-called facts. It is never just that Trump said this or that, but that Trump lied. The drumbeat is constant. 

For example, when the New York Times reported that Joe Biden had said that Trump supporters were “garbage,” the paper inserted the word “appeared,” as in “appeared to say.”

Strangely, these media outlets have not figured out that they are selling their credibility for the dubious sense that they are not just reporting, but making history.

This is not disconnected from the fact that the most important influence on the way news is reported lies with social media. One has difficulty thinking that social media is any more credible.

As we now know government officials lean on social media outlets, the better to have them censor anything that would make Trump look good or Harris look bad. Didn’t Twitter put its large thumb on the scales in 2020 when it suppressed the New York Post story about Hunter’s laptop? 

Some have suggested that Bezos was inspired by the fact that some of his companies are subjected to federal regulation. Thus, he was defending his business.

On the other hand, you can ask why he bought the paper in the first place. At the least, he must have felt that it would give him prestige. Not necessarily power, but prestige. It would enhance his public reputation.

Now, he seems to have discovered that the editors of the Post have turned the paper into a propaganda rag, and that this fact does not grant him any respect or prestige. It makes him less reputable.

So, Bezos intervened in the endorsement process, almost as though he is warning his journalists to get their act together. He also added that he wanted the paper to have more conservative columnists, which would surely move the paper in a more respectable direction.

Journalism is in crisis. It has largely been taken over by ideologues who are more interested in promoting their own jejune beliefs than reporting the facts.

Bezos wrote this in the Post:

Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.

You would almost think that he was competing with Elon Musk, the man who brought Twitter into the world of objective journalism.

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.

Wednesday Potpourri

First, a few words of wisdom from Van Jones:

If progressives have a politics that says all white people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil it’s kinda hard to keep them on your side. If you're chasing people out of the party, you can't be mad when they leave.

Second, Mike LaChance offers a comment on the Nazi baiting that seems endemic to Democratic politicians:

For months, leftists have been marching in cities and on college campuses with Hamas flags, harassing Jewish people and Democrats have said NOTHING because they need these people's votes. Their anti-Trump accusations of Nazism are meaningless.

Third, Noah Pollak offers another comment on the same issue:

Right now, the Democratic Party is funding Iran with hundreds of billions of dollars it is using to arm terrorist groups and launch ballistic missiles at the Jewish state. This is clown world level chutzpah.

Fourth, we note with some chagrin that certain writers are promoting a boycott of Israeli and Jewish writers. Judith Shulevitz responded, quoting Lionel Shriver:

Writers like Salley Rooney and Arundhati Roy who drum up industry-wide boycotts of other writers betray a fundamental failure to understand what writers do for a living and need in order to survive: "The impulse to form a mob is surely antithetical to the impulse to record your thoughts in text in private and to have your unique voice broadly heard," writes Lionel Shriver. "It is not in the interest of any writer for publishers, agents, and festivals to be the preserve of a narrow ideological position on any issue. If you actually are an independent thinker, which we might imagine would be a criterion for your job, you are bound to fall out with the orthodoxy at such institutions at some point down the line."

Fifth, Kristen Welker is competing for the crown of being the most stupid television journalist. JD Vance schooled her:

JD Vance: "If we're ever going to get out of the mess that Kamala Harris left us in."

Kristen Welker: "Donald Trump was president for 4 years while Russia was essentially invading Crimea."

JD Vance: "Oh that's a misunderstanding of the history Kristen.

We had Russia invade another country during Obama.

We had Russia invade another country during Bush's term.

We had Russia invade a sovereign nation during the 'leadership' of Kamala Harris.

The one 4 year term where Russia did not launch a full scale invasion of a neighbor was under Donald Trump."

Sixth, as though she had not demonstrated manifest incompetence in her handling of the war in Ukraine, the head of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen has come out in favor of censorship. She wants to immunize everyone against disinformation.

John Leake refutes her notion cogently:

1). Knowledge about the world is constantly evolving through constant inquiry, discussion, and dissemination. Knowledge is NOT a static thing. This is why countries with stifling censorship regimes have experienced intellectual, scientific, and artistic stagnation. Their rulers try to freeze the human mind in its state at their moment in history.

2). NO state, university, or ecclesiastical committee has ever been in possession of the full truth of any matter. Official orthodoxies have always been challenged by heterodox thinkers. Indeed, virtually every major advance in human insight has been performed by heterodox thinkers.

3). As John Milton observed in his 1644 pamphlet, Areopagitica, contending with error is an intrinsic part of learning and discovery. We literally learn by making mistakes and correcting them. If free speech is suppressed for the objective of preventing the propagation of erroneous thought—or “vaccinating against it”—it will become extremely difficult if not impossible for people to learn and discover.

4). Without a single exception in history, the people who hold power always advocate the orthodoxy that sustains and extends their power and that of their friends and supporters.

Seventh, another day, another expression of frustration about the work habits of Gen Z. Apparently, the young generation is a walking and talking calamity.

The New York Post explains:

They’re swiping. They’re griping. Their fingers are busy scrolling and eyes are constantly rolling.

They’re Zoomers in the workplace.

And they are the most “annoying” demographic plaguing offices nationwide, per a recent report.

“According to respondents, 29% say Gen Z coworkers are the most annoying to work with,” revealed researchers from LLC.org, Limited Liability Company experts. “Lack of work ethic, complaining and entitlement were the top three annoying traits of Gen Z coworkers.”

Making matters worse, whipper-snappers of the digital era, workers ranging in age from 18 to 27, also rank as the “least productive” folks on the clock as compared to their millennial, Gen X and Baby Boomer colleagues.

Eighth, on Monday Lawrence Summers underwent a long interview on Fox News, by Martha MacCallum. Considering that Summers was among the first economists to assert that the Biden spending program, as of early 2021, would produce a spike in inflation, we count him as possessing integrity. Moreover, he was chased out of the presidency of Harvard University for not being sufficiently woke. Thus, we take him seriously.

At the end of his interview Summers claimed that he had been speaking to corporate executives and they had told him that they would never hire as CEO someone who had Donald Trump’ lack of decorum. Being verbally incontinent would disqualify Trump from their consideration.

Truth be told, I count among those who believe that Trump would do himself and us a great favor if he could put a lid on some of his off-the-cuff pronouncements.

Then again, the alternative in the current election is a subliterate buffoon who cannot formulate a coherent sentence in English when not using a teleprompter. And who giggles uncontrollably far too often.

Would these executives hire Kamala over Trump? I will let them speak for themselves.

But that is not the only problem with the analogy. We must keep in mind that corporate CEOs and other senior executives are hired by a board of directors, not by popular vote. A CEO is selected by a committee, not by the populace. When you need to appeal to the general public you cannot behave as you would if you are seeking the votes of a couple of dozen people.

At the risk of being more churlish than usual, I would point out that the education level of the average board of directors largely exceeds that of the average citizen. 

Considering the quality of education in America, if you want to appeal to large numbers of people you do better to emphasize emotion over reason.

Ninth, as for the current slander of the former president, it is useful to see what Israelis think about the American elections, and especially what they think of “Adolph” Trump. Surely, they would be the first to recognize an anti-Semite.

The New York Post reports that, by a very large margin, they prefer Trump:

An overwhelming number of Israelis (66%) prefer Republican presidential nominee and former president Donald Trump over Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, according to a Channel 12 News poll the findings of which were revealed on Monday.

The survey, conducted a week before the U.S. election, found only 17% of Israelis choose Harris, while another 17% had no preference.

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.

I'm Proud of You

Where is the Tiger Mom now that we need her?

You will recall that Yale Law Professor Amy Chua created something of a ruckus when she published a book entitled, The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. 

In it she explained how she had chosen to raise her daughters to be disciplined and organized, to excel academically and to avoid all frivolities. The mother who threatened to burn all of her daughter’s dolls was certainly not practicing what is now called gentle parenting.

Since her daughters are now adults, we can see that the Tiger Mom way of raising a child works very well. Sophia, for example, went to Harvard, joined ROTC, went to law school, clerked at the Supreme Court, created an online tutoring company, did a stint in the military and got married.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that she made her parents proud. 

Nowadays, the latest in bizarre childrearing advice comes from the practitioners of what is called gentle parenting.

The children brought up thusly tend to be chaotic and disorganized, self-indulgent and undisciplined.

The New York Post reports:

Recently, one woman posted in an online Reddit forum that her sister’s family is banned from her home because of “gentle parenting.” According to the anonymous Redditor, the sister exhibited “zero discipline.”

“During the first two days of their stay, her daughter drew on my walls with crayon,” the user wrote online. “And her son pulled up flowers I had recently planted in my garden bed and threw a rock at my car parked in the driveway.”

“To top it all off,” she added, “they both kept constantly pulling my golden retriever’s hair and hitting my dog in the face.”

Apparently, gentle parents believe that the solution to bad behavior is awareness and understanding, as though children are therapy patients. 

How bad does it get?

Consider this piece of advice, handed out like candy to young mothers.

They are being instructed not to tell their children that they are proud of them, but to tell them that they should be proud of themselves.

Naturally, if you practice this aberrant bit of nonsense, your children will turn out to be narcissistic egomaniacs. Is that what we really, really want?

As it happens, the phrase “I am so proud of you” represents correct English grammar. “You should be proud of yourself” is agrammatical.

The first bespeaks connection. It identifies the child as a family member whose achievements reflect well on other members of the family. If your parents succeed in the world, the reputation of other members of the family is enhanced. If, on the other hand, a member of your family is exposed as a serial killer or an embezzler, your family name is going to be tarnished.

Everyone who does not get sucked up in the gentle parenting silliness knows this.

Unfortunately, if you are the ultimate arbiter of your quota of pride, you are going to end up in a solipsistic maze.

Pride accompanies achievement. Love is less discriminating. You understand that your parents love you no matter how well you did on the last spelling quiz. But, they are only proud of you if you achieved superior results. 

And then there is this. If you ask what motivates you to do your best, to work hard to win and succeed… the answer is-- other people. We are more motivated when we are working to improve the lives of others, whether their reputations or their well-being, than when we are just doing it for our own personal gratification.

So, the dopey nonsense about not telling your children that you are proud of them will de-motivate them.

Besides, as organizational psychologist Tasha Euruch has argued persuasively, you are how others see you, not how you feel about yourself.

It’s all about reputation, and even about face. Keep in mind, you never see your own face directly. You cannot look yourself in the eye. You only see yourself when you see the way others treat you, how they see or do not see you.

The notion that you should be proud of yourself is grammatically infelicitous and in stark defiance of the laws of human psychology, especially those that value reputation over self-love.

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.

Multiculturalism Fails

Long time readers of my blog and Substack have heard tell of Harvard Professor Robert Putnam’s seminal study of multicultural communities. The study, entitled “E Pluribus Unum” dates to 2006 and demonstrates that they do not work, that the cost largely outweighs the benefits.

Now, Renu Mukherjee explains it in detail in the City Journal. She reviews Putnam and reprises his argument that multicultural communities undermine social capital and basic trust.

She writes:

“In more diverse settings, Americans distrust not merely people who do not look like them, but even people who do,” said Putnam. Diversity contributes a decline in “social capital,” Putnam found, eroding our “social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.” Using data from the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, a national survey of 30,000 individuals spread across 41 towns and cities in the U.S., Putnam identified a strong negative relationship between racial and ethnic diversity, on the one hand, and social trust, a common measure of social capital, on the other: the greater the level of racial or ethnic diversity in a community, the less the residents of that community trusted their neighbors, regardless of whether these neighbors were of a different race or ethnicity. For instance, while only 30 percent of residents in highly diverse Los Angeles and San Francisco said that they trusted their neighbors “a lot,” in racially homogenous areas of North and South Dakota, 70 percent to 80 percent of residents said they did.

Simply put, more diversity means that people are less likely to get along. And that means, strikingly, less likely to get along with people who resemble them.In a multicultural community it’s everyone for him or her self.

Residents of more diverse places had lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media; were less likely to give to charity or volunteer; less apt to work on a community project; enjoyed fewer close friends and confidants; and were generally less happy. “Like tools (physical capital) and training (human capital), social networks have value,” Putnam said. We rely on social networks at work to help us succeed at our jobs. We rely on them in our neighborhoods to deter crime and make us feel safe. And we rely on them in our personal lives to feel loved and supported. If racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. hurt social networks, then we must reckon with its costs just as we take seriously its benefits.

So, if the American social fabric is frayed, almost to the point of incoherence, the reason might well be the push for diversity. Respect different cultures as equals and you will end up disrespecting all cultures, including your own.

As for how to overcome the problems posed by diversity, the solution lies in finding what Putnam called an encompassing monoculture, a singular culture that provides a national identity.

The first step in considering these adverse effects is determining how to mitigate them. According to Putnam, the answer is simple: establish a widely encompassing social identity for the affected community, one divorced from race or ethnicity.

Among those places where this occurs is the United States Army. In a place where everyone wears the same uniform, follows the same rules, speaks the same language and affirms patriotic loyalty to the nation… people do get along.

Or, I would say, they got along until the Biden administration decided to go all woke and to promote diversity:

The United States Army today has become a relatively color-blind institution. Systematic surveys have shown that the average American soldier has many closer inter-racial friendships than the average American civilian of the same age and social class. Yet barely thirty years ago, the Army was not a race relations success story. During the Vietnam War, one heard frequently of inter-racial “fragging”—that is, deadly attacks with fragmentation hand grenades among soldiers of different races. 

Or else, if you prefer, to clarify these points, we examine thoughts by one Peter Berkowitz, from Real Clear Politics:

To endure, a rights-protecting or liberal democracy needs citizens who regard themselves as engaged in a common enterprise. They must share a language. They must respect basic moral and political principles. They must take pride in their nation’s accomplishments while facing up to and correcting their country’s flaws by upholding the best in the nation’s traditions and heeding justice’s enduring imperatives. They must trust that as they generally follow society’s written and unwritten rules, so too will others. And they must partake of a broad commitment – that receives expression in the exercise of toleration and civility – to securing a freedom for each consistent with a like freedom for all. 

Nicely put. At the least, this tells us that multiculturalism is inherently damaging to the social and cultural fabric. Better to replace it with good, old-fashioned patriotism.

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.

Sunday Pause

As has become habitual, I pause on Sunday. It’s that time of the week, a time for reflection and contemplation. It also allows my readers to catch up on posts that they might have missed during the week.

I would like to think that among the topics of deep reflection are this one. Considering the time and effort it takes to write these posts, one would like to think that they are worthy of compensation.

Thus, in place of a tithe, I make a humble request for donations. 

Obviously, it takes time and effort to write these posts. I have been posting on this blog for well over a decade now. It is not self-evident. I could not have done it without the financial support of you, my readers.

If you would like to show appreciation and to encourage me to continue, a good way would be by making a financial contribution. Gratitude is a virtue. 

I try to make my writing sound effortless, but, as the old saying goes, it takes a lot of work to make anything seem effortless. From where I sit, it deserves some compensation. 

The internet is awash in blogs and Substacks. I am grateful to those who have chosen to spend a small part of their days reading mine. I have tried to be worthy of their confidence, by presenting reflections and analysis that are unlikely to be found elsewhere. 

If you would like to donate please make use of the Paypal link on this page. If you prefer, you can mail a check to 310 East 46th St. 24H. New York, NY 10017.

I’m counting on you. 

If you have already donated, please pass the word along to your friends, family, associates and colleagues.

Thank  you in advance.

Saturday Miscellany

First, in the world of political irony, Max Abrahms makes this salient point on Twitter:

We live in an Orwellian world where the vice president who oversaw the worst antisemitism of my lifetime and didn’t do shit about it is calling her opponent Hitler.

Second, Glenn Greenwald has his own take on the Trump is Hitler meme:

Maybe the "Trump-is-Hitler" thing could work if Trump were unknown. 

But.... He's been famous for 5 decades. Beloved by US elites. The star of a hit NBC prime-time show. Oprah suggested he should run for President. Hung out with rappers and billionaires. The Clintons went to his wedding. 

And -- just 3 years ago! - he was President for 4 years and nobody except MSNBC viewers remembers death camps, wars of conquest or other Hitlerian behavior. And it's been all tried before, including this same John Kelly crap. Has the stench of desperation.

Third, no Saturday would be complete without a Kamala word salad. In truth, everyone, including David Axelrod, is getting seriously tired of the incoherent ramblings of our vice president. Just in case, here’s one from her CNN Town Hall:

KAMALA: "We will work together, and continue to work together, to address these issues, to tackle these challenges, and to work together as we continue to work operating from the new norms, rules, and agreements, that we will convene to work together. We will work together."

Fourth, a few words from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Just in case you didn't know that everything the Democrats are saying that Trump will do, they are doing themselves.

RFK Jr: “Vice President Harris said today in her speech that president Trump was gonna turn the US military against the American public.”

“What’s interesting to me is that the Biden/Harris administration did something 2 weeks ago that has never been done in American history, which is to send a directive to the Pentagon, changing a law to make it legal for the US military to use lethal force against American citizens on American soil.”

“Technically now it's legal for the US military under this directive to shoot and k*** Americans who engage in political protest because they disagree with policies in the White House.”

“This did not come from Donald Trump. It came from the Democratic party, and that's why I left the Democratic party.”

Fifth, Kevin Wallsten and Owen West take the measure of military recruitment. As you have no doubt heard, it is down, too far down for our good. 

The authors suggest that one reason is that veterans are advising their progeny against joining today’s military:

The veteran community has lost faith in the country’s national-security leadership. The military is a family business—80% of volunteers have a family member who served. 

Three years into a recruiting crisis, however, the Pentagon hasn’t specifically surveyed this core constituency to determine what’s going wrong.

Pew surveys in 2011 and again in 2019 found approximately 80% of veterans would advise young people to join the military. We recently commissioned a demographically representative YouGov survey of 2,100 veterans. Our data show the share of veterans recommending military service plunged 20 percentage points in five years, to just 62%.

Some part of it reflects the recent DEI initiatives:

Over the past three years, the Pentagon steadily erected a diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy. Diversity officers were installed throughout the ranks, systematically replacing Colin Powell’s “colorblind” philosophy with identity reporting up the chain of command. The Air Force issued a memorandum in 2022 setting specific race and sex quotas for officers. In 2023 President Biden stated diversity was necessary for “all successful military operations,” ordering DEI to be embedded throughout the ranks.

Sixth, in the world of mental health one Dr. Georgia Ede has proclaimed: Let them eat meat! It’s good for your brain. 

Dr. Ede wrote this:

Dr. Georgia Ede is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist specializing in nutritional and metabolic psychiatry.

…[D]espite the health halo that vegan diets have been given over the last few years, she claims that giving up meat could be detrimental for mental health.

‘The brain needs meat,’ she told KIRO News Radio.

‘We’re used to hearing that meat is dangerous for our total health, including our brain health, and plants are really the best way to nourish and protect our brains.’

‘But the truth of the matter is that it’s actually — that’s upside down and backward.’

Seventh, where is Wilhelm Reich when we need him? What would his theories say about a woman, as in, Nicole Kidman, who said she had had too many orgasms. 

It occurred when Kidman was acting in a new movie. Here is the hot story, from the New York Post:

Nicole Kidman admitted she was “so turned on” while filming her new erotic drama “Babygirl” that she had to temporarily hit the brakes on production.

In the kinky movie, Kidman plays a powerful businesswoman who risks her career and family life to have a passionate affair with her much younger intern, played by “Where the Crawdads Sing” actor Harris Dickinson, 28.

The 57-year-old Oscar winner said performing sexual scenes with Dickinson and Antonio Banderas, who plays her husband in the movie, sometimes became too much to handle.

“There were times when we were shooting where I was like, ‘I don’t want to orgasm any more,’” Kidman told The Sun.

Is this the ultimate in method acting?

Eighth, some words of wisdom from JD Vance:

If you're discarding a lifelong friendship because somebody votes for the other team, then you've made a terrible, terrible mistake and you should do something different….

Don't cast aside family members and lifelong friendships. Politics is not worth it. And I think we follow that principle. We'll heal the divide in this country.

Ninth, if Vance is right, that implies that far too many people are reconfiguring their social contacts based on politics. This disrupts the social fabric of their lives and apparently diminishes their mental health.

Who knew?

From Study Finds:

Presidential elections get plenty of people tense, but 2024 may be the most nerve-racking race of them all. More than 60% of Americans in a new poll say that their mental health has either been slightly, moderately, or significantly impacted by November’s election.

In fact, 46% say they have feelings of anxiety, 37% are stressed out, and 31% are experiencing fear when it comes to the 2024 presidential race. Election anxiety is impacting younger Americans in particular, the survey by Forbes Health found. 

Specifically, Gen Z (66%), millennials (64%), and Gen X (63%) were most likely to say that the election has had at least a slight negative impact on their mental health, compared to 56% of baby boomers.

Although the survey found the top emotions surrounding the 2024 election are anxiety, stress, and fear, not everyone is having a mental breakdown about the next president. In fact, 27% of participants are feeling optimistic, 22% feel excitement, 16% are happy, and 12% are actually feeling a sense of relief.

Tenth, some people do have too much money. Consider the evidence. Certain very wealthy tech bros are spending money to solve the non-problem of global warming by blocking out the sun:

Bloomberg reports:

A growing number of Silicon Valley founders and investors are backing research into blocking the sun by spraying reflective particles high in the atmosphere or making clouds brighter. The goal is to quickly cool the planet.

Who was it who said: Don’t mess with Mother Nature?

Eleventh, the mainstream media has scrupulously avoided mention of Doug Emhoff’s treatment of women. Fortunately for us, the tabloid press, aka The Daily Mail, is on the story:

Doug Emhoff's ex-girlfriend has spoken exclusively to DailyMail.com claiming that he slapped her in the face so hard she spun around at a 2012 celebrity event in France.

The woman, a successful New York attorney, is remaining anonymous, but decided to speak out after Emhoff, Kamala Harris's husband, denied the claims through a spokesman.

Emhoff's accuser, who DailyMail.com is naming only as 'Jane', initially declined to comment on the record. But Emhoff's denial, and his alleged hypocrisy by claiming to be a feminist in media interviews, finally became too much for her.

'What's frightening for a woman that's been on the other end of it, is watching this completely fabricated persona being portrayed,' Jane said.

'He's being held out to be the antithesis of who he actually is. And that is utterly shocking.'

Yes, indeed. Doug Emhoff is the great feminist hero, the model for modern manliness.

Twelfth, if you would like counseling or coaching, contact me via my email, Stuart Schneiderman@gmail.com

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.