Are the world’s most accomplished people doomed to disappoint us when they offer political opinions?

by philg

It is conventional among Democrats to deplore Elon Musk’s refusal to change with the times and adopt the latest progressive dogma. And, indeed, despite Musk being objectively one of the world’s most accomplished people, the opinions that he expresses or retweets are conventional Republican points of view. He doesn’t, for example, suggest that the U.S. eliminate asylum and the rest of the programs that inspire migrants to come here (he supports milquetoast measures to return undocumented migration to pre-Biden/Harris levels). Nor does Musk agree with me that voting should be restricted to those who’ve worked for at least 8 years (W-2 or 1099), a return to the system of 200 years ago (men started working at 13 and started voting at 21), albeit tweaked for gender ID neutrality (don’t want to exclude 73 of the genders recognized by Science if people who identify with those 73 genders have experience working and paying taxes).

On the other side of the political spectrum, we have Yann LeCun. He’s a Turing Award winner who has been at the forefront of the machine learning craze (bubble?). His Twitter feed is indistinguishable from that of any other committed Democrat, e.g., blaming arch villain Donald Trump for the nation’s problems after a two-year period in which Democrats controlled Congress and the White House and, therefore, could pass any legislation that they deemed necessary. Example of one of the world’s most creative person’s tweets:

In other words, one of the world’s most accomplished people accepts the Democrat idea that the commander in chief of a $1 trillion/year military does not, without some further action of Congress, have the authority or ability to prevent random foreigners from crossing the U.S. border.

Speaking of creative, let’s look at Taylor Swift, the most accomplished person in the world of music (Though maybe we should give some credit to Itzhak Perlman, still performing from his wheelchair at age 79 (he was born in “Mandatory Palestine” and is older than the war that the Arabs declared on the new state of Israel).). Here’s part of her endorsement of Kamala Harris:

“I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos. I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades,”

The specific causes that she cites are more or less the same that a Democrat who can’t carry a tune might cite, e.g., additional promotion of Rainbow Flagism and more widely available abortion care for pregnant people. As with the typical Democrat, she isn’t interested in hearing an opposing point of view (“comments on this post have been limited” (limited to none)).

Let’s finally look at J.K. Rowling, the greatest writer of the 21st century (measured by sales, at least). Her main expressed political belief is that person with XY chromosomes cannot claim to be a “woman”. While, of course, this is a denial of Science, it is also a common denial of Science. The originality of Harry Potter is not to be found in J.K. Rowling’s belief that a man cannot raise his/her hand and become a woman.

I’m wondering if hyper-accomplished people need to keep quiet on the subject of politics. It is tough to come up with a political idea that isn’t already held by a lot of mediocre people and, therefore, expressing a political idea will always reduce public awe of the hyper-accomplished person. (And it would be even worse if the hyper-accomplished celebrity uttered an original idea! Imagine the uproar if Elon Musk, for example, were to say that voting should be restricted to Americans who’ve paid at least $1 of income tax at some point in their lives. Or if Taylor Swift were to take progressive love for Palestine to its logical conclusion and say that Americans who identify as “women” should be forced to wear hijab, long skirts, and long sleeves because otherwise immigrants from Gaza will feel uncomfortable.)

40 thoughts on “Are the world’s most accomplished people doomed to disappoint us when they offer political opinions?”

  1. It may indeed be best for most of the accomplished people to remain silent on politics, except a few such as Musk that are trying to actively participate (either for a future cabinet position or to get starlink contracts reinstated or whatever other reason, but he seems to be doing a lot more than simply endorsing someone).

  2. “Democrats controlled Congress and the White House and, therefore, could pass any legislation that they deemed necessary.” — “Dr” Phil

    So you are a fan of abolishing the filibuster? Either way your statement is misleading (really just flat out wrong).

    • Mike: that’s a good point. I guess there were some limits on what Biden-Harris and Congress could have done from 2021-2023.

  3. The issue is most accomplished people are accomplished in a particular field, say playing the violin, but like the rest of us have (mostly mediocre) opinions on all sorts of things. A question is whether their opinions in areas unrelated to their expertise will be given extra weight by the electorate. The pols seem to think so since they solicit endorsements from say entertainment figures for their policy agendas. Elon is a bit different since he is accomplished in a number of fields, though all seem related to engineering.

    • jdc: I think the full spectrum of political opinions has already been expressed! It is very difficult to be original.

  4. Aren’t you doing exactly what you suggest Elon shouldn’t do (“…maybe these people need to keep quiet on the subject of politics”)? Or, perhaps your ideas are less “mediocre” than those of the others that you trash (just like Hilary)?

  5. The problem isn’t that mediocre people hold certain opinions; the problem is that the ideas themselves are mediocre and are often trojan horses for something else.

    Much of politics is signaling (lying) to stupid people, without being so craven about it as to alienate parts of the core constituency. How many politicians want to “fight” inflation? How many politicians voted for the CARES Act? 419-6 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h493

    When an accomplished person endorses politically, they inevitably cheapen their scholarship, because they are vouching for ideas that they know or should know are untruthful. In the case of Taylor Swift, she is simply vouching for a young single female future cat lady demographic.

    The alternative of sincere debate is worse, because the root causes are often too uncomfortable to contemplate. Inflation? Unfunded vote buying… Abortion? A licentious sexual culture, which is encouraged by deferred adulthood and flimsy commitments.

    Much easier to convert everything into a righteous moral issue, so that the nuance and costs become verboten. Absolutism solidifies support among the leaners. However, an accomplished person speaking in moral absolutes seems sleazy, to the person whose vital personal interests are being infringed upon.

    There’s still a lingering cultural fascination with “expertise.” As if some optimal political idea is innately better, rather than a narrative on behalf of a special interest. I do wonder if someone like Yann LeCun has parochial interests (e.g., science funding) that he is stealth advocating for, or if he is simply lacking in self-awareness. Parochial interests were a major factor in Covid policy; both the apparent coverup of GOFROC, and the desire for a scientifically triumphalist virus elimination were more important than the financial and health costs imposed on the public.

    • Thanks for that coronapanic link. I love that $2 trillion in money printing was done via a procedure “typically used to pass non-controversial bills”.

      Regarding Prof. Dr. Jill Biden, Ph.D.’s colleague Prof. Dr. Yann LeCun, Ph.D. voting his parochial interest… The academics that I know, all of whom are 98% dependent on taxpayer funds (tuition subsidies, student loan subsidies and “forgiveness”, research grants) all say that they vote for Democrats because they are intelligent and morally superior to the typical stupid white person in the U.S. They’re not voting Democrat because Democrats promise to expand government and increase the cashflow to colleges and universities.

    • Dear Phil,

      Bless your heart for the kind shout-out! Hunter and my Joey just reminded me how fortunate I am to have earned a couple advanced degrees that enable me to guide others in the right (left) direction…even the so- called deplorables!

      Most sincerely,
      Dr. Jill (and my dear Joey).

  6. But Yann’s tweet is 100% correct, right?

    Which words in his 4-line tweet are false?

    Is this not common knowledge in the news sources you follow?

    • The fraud is likely in the referenced tweet: “border security legislation”. The typical law these days does the opposite of what the title says. So a bill to print and spend $trillions will be an “inflation reduction act”. A bill to make it easier to get set up on welfare, gain citizenship, and vote for Democrats will be characterized as an “increase border security” act or a “control immigration act”.

    • The bill was written by Republican Senator Lankford from Oklahoma.

      He’s not a woke guy trying to implement replacement theory.

      If Lankford did one thing wrong, it was not getting the joke. He actually followed through on what Republicans said they wanted!

      If you listen to right-wing media at the time, they were very openly saying “Don’t give Biden a win”. It was not a secret.

      Important to note as well: This bill would have given the next president powers he doesn’t have currently. Trump could have just asked for his wishlist of powers, and it likely would have passed. Instead, he wanted a disaster at the border that he could run on.

    • I have to admit that I am so accustomed to every bill doing the opposite of the title that I haven’t studied it. Let me ask ChatGPT… The 2024 Border Security Bill aimed to streamline citizenship paths for some immigrants by creating structured pathways within the new immigration framework. Specifically, it introduced provisions for expedited processing and work authorization for immigrants who meet specific eligibility requirements. Those who pass initial screenings would be eligible for a work permit, and, upon successful final screenings, could qualify for a pathway to citizenship. The bill mandates that this process must be completed within 180 days, addressing delays that often leave immigrants in prolonged uncertainty.

      Additionally, the bill sought to address longstanding issues for “Documented Dreamers” (children of legal immigrant workers) by offering protection from aging out of legal status, thus preventing their forced departure due to green card backlogs. Furthermore, it expanded visa allocations, adding approximately 50,000 employment- and family-based visas annually over five years, increasing legal immigration options for both family members and highly skilled workers.

    • Philip — Ask Chat GPT to compare policy before the bill and after the bill.

      Let’s see if it understands the number of immigrants capable of getting legal status with the bill and without the bill.

      How would one reconcile these facts?

      – Bill written by a Republican
      – Mitch McConnell “supported the negotiations, saying Republicans would not get a better deal under a Republican White House.” (from Reuters story)
      – Progressive groups were against the bill
      – Right-wing sources said “Don’t given Biden a win”

      Does ChatGPT know something we don’t?

    • The border security bill included:
      – $60 billion for Ukraine
      – $14 billion for Israel
      – $10 billion for Gaza
      (the meme of everyone firing US taxpayer funded missiles at everyone else comes to mind)

      It also gives legal status to the first 5000 border crossers per day. The same people in charge of counting vs looking the other way, remain in charge.

      https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/

    • Anon: Thanks for that link. It looks like the bill essentially opened up the border to a minimum of 5,000 migrants per day (1.825 million new Americans per year) plus however many the “Border Patrol” failed to notice. I’m confused by the language, though. The Border Patrol didn’t have to make any attempts to secure the border until after 5,000 people strolled across and, after that, they were supposed to close the border. But if they had the capability of closing the border why wouldn’t it be closed right now? In theory, at least, it isn’t legal for someone to cross the border without documents.

      David: How could there have been at least one Republican who supported this bill to allow 2+ million undocumented folks in every year? That’s roughly the population of the City of Chicago. Maybe the Republican in question owns apartment buildings or hotels. See https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/25/nyregion/hotels-prices-migrants-nyc.html (“The average hotel room rate in the city is $301 a night, a record. A major reason: One of every five hotels is now a shelter, contributing to a shortage of tourist lodging.”)

    • Let me describe the background.

      The US is part of a world-wide treaty that allows people to claim Asylum if they’re in danger in their home country.

      I think this started shortly after WW2, likely when people were thinking of the Holocaust.

      But in the last few years, people from south of the US have been taking advantage and saying that they’re at risk in their home countries.

      To some extent, this is true; these are dangerous countries. But not Holocaust-level dangerous.

      If you cross the border and ask for Asylum, a border person will interview you to do a quick sanity check. If you’re not turned back, you’ll be given a court date to appear where they’ll do a proper review.

      This is what’s called “Catch and release”, since you’re now allowed to stay in the US legally until your court date.

      But there are so many people claiming asylum that these court dates are years away. And I think a large fraction never show up for their court dates.

      So people can really just crash the border, overflow the system, and get legal status to stay in the US for years.

      At the moment, there’s no limit on the number of people who can claim asylum.

      Under the proposed bill, the 5k limit would allow the govt to close the border.

      It’s not “up to 5k free people” or “at least 5k people”. It’s a 5k-person cap vs no cap.

      Also, those people let in wouldn’t be allowed to roam the country. You know all those migrants who are staying in hotels around the US? Those aren’t illegals. Those are people who have passed their initial asylum claims, and therefore have legal status. This is why the cities are paying for hotels.

      Post-bill (if it passed), those people would no longer being bussed around the country and free to road with legal status. They would be held.

      And if the US passed the 5k mark on one day and closed the border, and then we had 1400 _encounters_, the US would simply reject everyone else at the border, and say “we’re no longer considering asylum claims. We’re maxed out.” There’s no rule that allows the border people to do that today. This is why congress needs a bill.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/us/politics/migrant-crisis-border-asylum.html

    • David: Thanks for the NBC link. It says “People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews” regarding the 5,000 new Americans per day. But why would anyone fail this interview? Why wouldn’t an asylum story written by ChatGPT be accepted? Under Biden-Harris administration rules, a tale of being a victim of domestic violence qualifies for asylum. How is a government worker in the US supposed to prove that a story about domestic violence that happened 5,000 miles away is false? https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/16/asylum-standards-biden-494918

    • I asked ChatGPT “I’m writing a book about an immigrant named Cruz who makes a difficult walking journey from Venezuela through the Darién Gap and onward by bus, freight train, and hitchhiking to the U.S. border. They is nonbinary. Write me the scene in which Cruz applies for asylum from a U.S. border official.”

      ———- the response

      Cruz stepped forward, their legs still aching from the journey that brought them to this place. The air felt thick, pressing down, but it was nothing compared to the weight Cruz had carried since they left home. When the officer finally called their name, Cruz lifted their chin, steeling themself. This was the moment when everything they’d endured—the threats, the violence, the desperation—needed to count for something.

      “I’m here to seek asylum,” Cruz said, their voice steady but strained. They had practiced these words until they felt like armor, a shield for what was to come.

      The officer, expression impassive, nodded, pen poised above a sheet of paper. Cruz took a breath and began.

      “I’m from Venezuela. I had to leave because being nonbinary there—it’s not just rejected; it’s punished.”

      The memories came flooding back. Cruz remembered the whispers, the stares that lingered too long, and the encounters that felt like traps waiting to spring. “I kept a low profile,” they continued. “I cut my hair, dressed to blend in. But it didn’t matter. One day, after a protest, a police officer pulled me aside. He told me that people like me didn’t belong and that if he saw me around again ‘looking like that,’ he’d make sure I disappeared.”

      They described the escalating threats: neighbors, coworkers, people they’d once trusted had turned on them, leaving notes scrawled in hateful words under their door. Maricón, we’re coming for you. And worse still, they slashed Cruz’s tires, threw a rock through their window. Each report to the police went ignored. Instead, the officers warned Cruz to “watch how they looked” if they wanted to avoid more trouble.

      The officer at the border said nothing, eyes fixed on Cruz. But Cruz pressed on, feeling the story come spilling out faster than they could hold it back. “I was attacked twice,” they said, the words catching on memories as vivid as the bruises had been. “The first time, a group of men saw me walking home from work. They shoved me into an alley, punched and kicked me until I couldn’t move. They said I was a ‘devil,’ ‘sick.’ One of them told me if I so much as looked his way again, they’d make sure I was never found.”

      Cruz took a shaking breath, hands clenched to keep steady. “The second time, it was even worse. One of them was in uniform. They cornered me outside a market. He and his friends said I was ‘dirtying’ the country. They broke my ribs, and one of them held his boot to my neck, telling me I had two choices: leave, or end up in the river like the others.”

      Cruz paused, voice barely above a whisper. “So, I left.”

      They went on to describe the journey through Colombia, fleeing one threat only to face new dangers. “When I heard about the Darién Gap, I knew it was my only chance,” Cruz said. The memories hit like a storm: the jungle’s endless mud, the feverish heat, exhaustion that felt like it was swallowing them whole. People disappeared there—people Cruz had walked beside only hours before, their cries echoing in the night. But Cruz kept going because they had to. There was no turning back.

      “I crossed Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua. Each border felt like a wall closing in, like someone would see me and turn me back. In Guatemala, I hitchhiked when I could, rode on open freight trains with strangers, all of us clinging to whatever we could find. I saw people fall off, disappear in the dark. But I kept going,” they said, voice steady but worn.

      Finally, Cruz looked up at the officer, meeting their gaze. “I don’t want to die. I’m not a criminal. I just want to live.”

      The officer’s pen paused, their face unreadable. Cruz waited, every fiber of their being taut with hope and fear, knowing that this truth—the raw, unvarnished story of everything they’d survived—was all they had left to offer.

    • Grok seems to do a better job: I took a deep breath, the words I had rehearsed over and over failing me now. “I am nonbinary,” I began, my voice barely above a whisper, then stronger, “and in Venezuela, that label makes me a target.” “My own brother, he… he couldn’t accept me. He beat me, Officer Martinez. Not just once, but repeatedly. He said I was an abomination, a disgrace to our family. He would have killed me if I hadn’t left.” “Yes,” I continued, the memories flooding back like a storm. “Gangs, they found out about me. They said I was defying nature, that I needed to be ‘corrected.’ They threatened me with sexual assault, with death. And the police? They did nothing. They laughed me off, told me to change my ways.” “Did you report these threats?” she asked, her voice steady. “I tried,” I said, my hands clenching. “But it only made things worse. The gangs have connections with some officers. I was warned to keep quiet or face worse.”

      “And your journey here?” she prompted.

      “I had to leave. I couldn’t stay. The Darién Gap was a nightmare, but less so than staying. I’ve been on the move since, always looking over my shoulder, afraid they’d find me.”

      She paused, looking at me. “Do you have any evidence of these claims?”

      I pulled out a small, worn notebook from my bag, filled with dates, names, and a few photos. “This is all I have. Pictures of my injuries, messages from friends warning me. And here,” I pointed at a fading scar on my arm, “a reminder of one night when I barely escaped.”

    • From what I’ve read, about 70% of people who apply for Asylum at the border are allowed in and given court dates.

      Getting their case heard can take 4-6 years. So they’re legal during that time.

      Once they get in front of the judge, I think the number is around 25% accepted.

      So that would be 25% of the 70%, I think.

      I think these numbers are a little hard to track down because many of these cases are abandoned, so we don’t know what happened to these people. Do they now show up because they know their case is weak? Do they not know how to use chatgpt?

      https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2018/11/01/12_asylum_decision_rates_by_nationality.pdf

      So as for the bill, you’re changing from:

      – 70% chance of getting legal status in the US for several years

      vs post-bill:

      – 80% chance of getting turned back or held in detention for a few weeks before being turned back

    • (Circling back to your point about asylum… the fact that the U.S. entered into a treaty back in the last century (pre-Jet Age and pre-world-population-explosion) isn’t relevant in my view. If the U.S. were a sovereign nation then nothing would stop us from withdrawing from the treaty, eliminating the right to claim asylum, and offering some other kind of assistance to foreigners. Since the U.S. has no control over who comes across the border and who gets to stay permanently (the control belongs to foreigners and how effectively they can prompt AI to spin an asylum tale), I would say that the U.S. is not a sovereign nation.)

    • It’s fine to change the law, but that requires Congress to act. (And Senate approval, I think, since it’s a treaty).

      And Democrats are their most willing to go along when a Democratic is president.

      So this is why the smart people said this was the best moment to get strong border changes, and any bills put forward by Trump will likely be weaker because Democrats won’t play along.

      So Trump might have turned down a once-in-a-generation opportunity because he wanted chaos at the border during the election.

      Mitch McConnell knows this. Trump’s voters should know this.

    • David: You might be right that the border will be open for the next generation. In that case, though, I would like to stop paying $1 trillion/year for the U.S. military. What is the point of having a military if a foreign army can simply walk into your country and take it over from the inside?

    • True story: I received an immigration hearing notice at my home address, for a person whom I never met.

      If it is true that only 25% of asylum seekers will pass an interview, the correct policy is to expedite the interviews, not to delay the interview for five years and allow them to submit false addresses before disappearing.

      This is why a bill that legalizes migrants 5000/day is perceived as an additional loosening of immigration; no one seriously believes that the other people who evade immigration or fail asylum will ever be asked to leave.

      Title 42 capitalizing on Coronapanic was a creative way to keep migrants out: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/27/key-facts-about-title-42-the-pandemic-policy-that-has-reshaped-immigration-enforcement-at-u-s-mexico-border/

      The point is that there is wide latitude for interpretation and abuse of existing laws. Without credibility of enforcement, no one wants to unilaterally increase legal migration. Democrat blackmail shouldn’t be the standard forcing a bad deal.

      Philg is right that there are huge cottage industry of migrant profiteers. Hoteliers in blue cities top the list; without migrants they would be part of the CRE crisis. But the grifters extend to NGOs, apartments, factories, farms, and hospitals almost everywhere.

    • Steve: Even if we asked a migrant to leave where would he/she/ze/they go? Venezuela, ably led by Nicolas Maduro, doesn’t want its citizens back (see https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4532281-venezuela-wont-take-its-criminals-back-so-why-does-biden-keep-taking-them/ ). for example. How can we force other countries to accept people whom we don’t want?

      (Separately, speaking of Venezuela, is anyone complaining about Maduro retaining power? Or has the “international community” moved on to criticism of Israel?)

    • David: You write that an asylum-seeker who enters the U.S. from Mexico can be “turned back”. What’s your source for this? The typical asylum-seeker is not a Mexican. Where is the national or international law that says we can dump people we don’t want on Mexico? What requires Claudia Sheinbaum to accept Haitians, Arabs, Indians, etc. as residents of or even visitors to Mexico?

      I saw a Canadian TV show about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam who is famous for his attempt to wage jihad on LAX to celebrate the millennium. A Canadian court had ordered him deported, according to the show, but officials couldn’t carry out the deportation because Mr. Ressam refused to cooperate with them, e.g., by producing his original Algerian passport. If Canada couldn’t deport an Algerian jihadi to Algeria why is the U.S. going to be more successful?

    • Philip – If you want to claim asylum, you cross the border and turn yourself into a border guard

      Sometime soon, they’ll do an asylum interview where they try to see if you have “reasonable fear” of returning to your country. If they don’t believe you, you’re sent back.

      If your story is credible enough, they’ll give you court date where they’ll evaluate your story in more detail. This is the date that’s a few years out. In the meanwhile, you can stay in the US. This is “catch and release”

      Under the bill, they ramp up the number of guards and judges so they can get through all these steps quickly. And since it’s going kinda quickly, they’ll keep you in custody instead of letting you roam freely in the country.

      This is definitely true for single adults. They’re more flexible with families with children.

      * By the way, the other tool for turning people around is not accepting people from far-away countries. That is, if someone escapes their home country and passes through 5 other countries to get to the US, and those other countries would have accepted them, you can turn the person around with “If this was really an emergency, you would have accepted the first country that accepted you.”

      I think Trump used this rule, then Biden reversed it, but I think maybe Biden reinstated it. I think this would pretty much block anyone from south america.

    • David: What do you mean “sent back” after a period of days, weeks, or months in some sort of detention center (except for those migrants who are willing to say “I am 17”)? To Venezuela? Maduro won’t accept deportation flights from the U.S. To Mexico? Why would they want the migrants that we say we don’t want? How do you know that Mexico won’t choose to defend its border?

    • David: to my point that laws generally do the opposite of what the peasants are told… the constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana (only if purchased from a government crony; still illegal to grow a plant in your house) here is sponsored by “Smart & Safe Florida” (i.e., nothing makes a human smarter and safer than smoking healing “cannabis” continuously) https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=83475&seqnum=2

  8. I was going to comment on ‘gated communities’ but lost the thread, so….OT ho!

    Back when we had relatives in the Florida Free State I did some research and stumbled across this fun premise: Gated communities have no less crime than similar but ungated communities. ¿Verdad? Perplexity.AI weighs in:

    “In conclusion, while some evidence suggests modestly lower crime rates in gated communities, other studies show little difference. The effectiveness likely depends on the specific security measures in place. Gated communities may offer more of a perception of safety rather than significantly lower actual crime rates compared to similar ungated neighborhoods.”

    Seems counter-intuitive to me, but could the whole gated thing resolve to a marketing point?

    • CCReed: I don’t think that there has been a study of “real gated communities” vs. regular neighborhoods. By “real gated” I mean that there is a human guard at the gate, not some four-digit code that has been handed out to every contractor who has ever worked in the county. With one human at the gate and one human zipping around in a golf cart, it is tough for me to see how a home invasion, home burglary, or street crime could be perpetrated. Let’s consider a well-known New York City case, the Central Park Five (Yusef Salaam is now an esteemed member of the City Council). From https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflixs-false-story-of-the-central-park-five-11560207823 …

      At about 9 p.m. April 19, 1989, a large group of young men gathered on the corner of 110th Street and Fifth Avenue for the purpose of robbing and beating innocent people in Central Park. There were more than 30 rioters, and the woman known as the “Central Park jogger,” Trisha Meili, was not their only victim. Eight others were attacked, including two men who were beaten so savagely that they required hospitalization for head injuries.

      Ms. DuVernay would have you believe the only evidence against the suspects was their allegedly forced confessions. That is not true. There is, for example, the African-American woman who testified at the trial—and again during the 2002 re-investigation—that when Korey Wise called her brother, he told her that he had held the jogger down and felt her breasts while others attacked her. There were blood stains and dirt on clothing of some of the five. And then there are the statements of more than a dozen of the other kids who participated in the park rampage. Although none of the others admitted joining in the rape of Trisha Meili, they admitted attacking male victims and a couple on a tandem bike, and each of them named some or all of the five as joining them.

      Nor does the film note that Mr. Salaam took the stand at his trial, represented by a lawyer chosen and paid for by his mother, and testified that he had gone into the park carrying a 14-inch metal pipe—the same type of weapon that was used to bludgeon both a male schoolteacher and Ms. Meili. Mr. Reyes’s confession changed none of this. He admitted being the man whose DNA had been left in the jogger’s body and on her clothing, but the two juries that heard those facts knew the main assailant in the rape had not been caught. The five were charged as accomplices, as persons “acting in concert” with each other and with the then-unknown man who raped the jogger, not as those who actually performed the act. In their original confessions—later recanted—they admitted to grabbing her breasts and legs, and two of them admitted to climbing on top of her and simulating intercourse. Semen was found on the inside of their clothing, corroborating those confessions.

      Mr. Reyes’s confession, DNA match and claim that he acted alone required that the rape charges against the five be vacated. I agreed with that decision, and still do. But the other charges, for crimes against other victims, should not have been vacated. Nothing Mr. Reyes said exonerated these five of those attacks. And there was certainly more than enough evidence to support those convictions of first-degree assault, robbery, riot and other charges.

      ——————- end of WSJ quote

      Imagine a future in which the U.S. population has been bulked up to 600 million via low-skill immigration (not “open borders” because we are informed that the border isn’t open). The elites decide that Central Park is too nice to share so they build a fence around it (walls sometimes work) and post guards at the handful of openings in the fence. Would the mostly peaceful events that propelled Yusef Salaam to political stardom and Democrat adulation have occurred? If the answer is “no” then gated communities are safer!

  9. You should get out more, those burgers aren’t going to flip themselves. I’ll never understand why you guys don’t love cheap labor. It’s like Hating America.

    Elon cheerleading is clearly tied to something else, he must know he’s on the wrong side of something that is going to require a pardon. And Don is making him dance for it.

    • RAnon: As it happens, I took the kids to Five Guys this evening! About $60 with tip. Why can’t Elon’s new robot flip the burgers, going forward? The same people who tell us that we need a few hundred million additional low-skill migrants also say that robots and AI will eliminate most jobs.

  10. I tend to look to Argentina as a bellwether of the US.
    There the well-to-do are all in for gated communities.
    See Nordelta, Buenos Aires. Looks like the Florida lifestyle, absent the hurricanes.

Comments are closed.