Our Best Stuff From a Week We Got a Little Bigger

Putin’s mobilization, national conservatism’s threat to religious freedom, and more.

By
35

Hello and happy Saturday. I apologize for not sending this out last week, but I was traveling back to the Ohio bureau from our first-ever staff retreat. The gathering was especially nice for me, since I usually see everyone only on video calls. It was also  full of surprises—and I’m not just talking about the hike we took that started out as a pleasant walk in the woods before we embarked on a 1,200-foot elevation gain over about a mile.

When I checked into my room, there was an itinerary for meetings and recreation, and also a guest list. As I perused it, one name in particular stood out. “Why,” I asked myself, “is Kevin Williamson at a Dispatch gathering?” Kevin has long been one of my favorite writers at National Review, and I was excited for the chance to meet him. And I had a hunch. (Hey, journalists tend to be bad at math but even I can put 2+2 together.) After I got settled and went to find others, I saw the boss. “So, Steve, do you have any surprise announcements while we’re here?”

And with that, the pirate skiff got a little more crowded. In fact, we really need a bigger boat. Kevin started this week, and so did Nick Catoggio (née Allahpundit), and I think I might need to either reformat this newsletter or at least change the headline to “Some of Our Best Stuff.” Both are prolific, and everything they have written already has been fantastic (yes, I am biased). Both wrote about why they joined us, and if you missed the posts, here is Kevin’s and here is Nick’s.

The Dispatch has been a labor of love since well before we hit “send” on the first Morning Dispatch in October 2019. We tell you this frequently (I hope not too often), but we really believe we are doing important work here. Our politics are a mess, and the state of conservative media is … uneven. We like to think that we can improve both. Adding Kevin and Nick to the lineup can only help on that front. I opted to summarize Nick’s piece on Russia’s mobilization below because it is so timely and offers great insight on Vladimir Putin’s very risky move, but I also recommend you read his first newsletter for us, which he headlined “Suckers and Fighters” and discusses the schism in the Republican Party between those who behave honorably and those who excuse dishonor if it’s in the service of acquiring power. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
35
By
Comments (35)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Rod Bell

    My gosh, Williamson is the score of the decade. Good job, Dispatch. I am not as familiar with Allahpundit, but I look forward to reading him as well.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Frank Lee

    The missing piece of the understanding here is one of captivity.

    If people are captives within a system and that system mandates compliance and participation then the content of that compliance and participation becomes a First Amendment rights challenge.

    If you are truly free to pursue alternatives, then you are not a captive and your freedom of speech, thought and association is not being fringed upon.

    Freedom is the state of being free from the control or domination of another or others.

    And children are a special circumstance as they are dependent on adults and are qualified captives until they are self-sufficient adults. There needs to be very strict parental oversight and approval of any content of any control or dominion over children.

    So the argument is captivity. Liberal Democrats would make the case that a small business baker must be forced to used his artistic abilities to make gay wedding cakes even though it conflicts with his beliefs and even though there are several other bakers available to the customers of gay wedding cakes and thus the customer is not captive to the targeting baker.

    Disney's adoption of wokeism and the demands for employees to adopt the ideology conflicts with First Amendment rights of the employees who are captive to their employer. The other argument is that Disney has captured significant unique market share and has become a de-facto component of American culture and the American way of life, and thus has captured a significant portion of the American consumer of its services and products. And as a media company with tremendous influence, it also has the power to indoctrinate customers into the ideology without their consent. This is also a 4th Amendment conflict. DeSantis's decision was not to penalize Disney for these misdeeds, but to remove a previous business advantage the state had provide them in consideration of the social and economic value that Disney would provide the state. With Disney adopting woke and forcing it on their captive employees and customers, the social value is eliminated and thus it is justified for the state to eliminate the business advantages. One can make the case that the economic benefits still exist, but there are many arguments against that considering the long-term implications for wokeism injected into American society.

    With respect to big tech... they have succeeded in capturing not only the majority of Americans, but much of the world. But with respect to American policy, like Disney, they have become a de-facto necessity for modern life. And with that achievement they are both richly rewarded, and have to accept a new level of social responsibility to run their business without harming the constitutional rights of employees and customers that have become captives of their business, services and products. And because they are frankly out of control and absolutely trampling on these rights, Section 230 protections should be removed. But before that can happen, the legislature need to revise the Section 230 language.

    Enacted in 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act helps protect online companies from liability arising from what is posted on their platforms. Section 230 provides immunity to internet companies in two ways:

    "1. A provider or user of an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the “publisher or speaker” of information provided by a third party. The law has a broad definition of “interactive computer service.” It includes almost any online platform that publishes third-party content."

    "2. Providers and users of interactive computer services can’t be liable for voluntarily taking down content if the provider believes in good faith that the information is obscene or otherwise objectionable."

    The problem here is that #2 is in direct conflict with #1. Because big tech is absolutely, by the use of its algorithms filtering content and "fact checking", censoring, shadow banning and de-platforming, is making decisions as to what content gets published to its customers. The language "provide believes in good faith that the information is obscene or otherwise objectionable" is what the attorneys of big tech and the Democrats leverage to justify opposition to their one-sided political advantage being filtered out.

    The legislation was either poorly written, or dimwitted Republicans failed to notice the WEF globalist Democrat political weapon inserted in the language.

    Americans are captive to these big tech platforms, products and services. That means that all of them must be made to comply with all protected rights for all people, and not just the privileged wealthy elites that run the Democrat party. And if the Federal government won't do its job to ensure these rights are protected, then state governors should have at them.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Glad to see yet another writer--Kevin Williamson--hang up the phone on NR. That publication is hanging by a thread whereas this one is really starting to get the hang of it...



    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Thank you for the round up!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Mark Lange

    Great job Team Dispatch! Where did y'all find 1.2K elevation changes via hiking?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Derek M

    I love the direction The Dispatch is heading, especially with the addition of Nick and KDW. As always, another great weekly wrap-up. (Now...if you can just schedule one of those Dispatch meetups in London...)

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Dave Conant - MO

    I'm not sure what the alternative is, but describing TD as "conservative" sets a standard that is far too high for the rest of that part of the industry and something that better describes the quality and range of opinion here might be appropriate. Very happy to see the new team members and looking forward to spending more time reading here.
    Great wrap-up, enjoy the rest of the weekend.

    Collapse
  8. Gordon REID SAUNDERS

    This is sounding like another "who shot John" conversation. Of course I may be misinterpreting the implication, but , obviously, the Christian label should not be considered as permission to engage in some superiority or preferred position. The question remains as to whether these self righteous Christians themselves have created this incorrect standard of special privilege or whether some other entity is interpreting their actions as pseudo privileged position. What action caused the creation of
    special preferred/privileged?

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    J. Eric

    The Dispatch is both remarkable and beautiful.
    Thanks

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I noticed the last TD was "out of range" for us Buckeyes, but it was near for David French. Probably to promote Aquaman or something.

    But, there are several TD subscribers here in Buckeye country so a shindig in SW ohio might work. Maybe in Cincy, and we could do a memorial toast to Harambe!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Rachael Larimore vertical-nib Author

      I support this idea 100 percent!

      Collapse
Load More