Banana Republicans

The insult of the Pentagon leak.

By

Jonah’s off like a herd of turtles in today’s rambling, self-indulgent behemoth of a Ruminant. After opening with a positively riveting description of The Dispatch’s approach to media training, he deftly transitions into a discussion of the Pentagon leak and the subsequent fecal festival that has consumed MAGA media. From there, listen—with all appropriate deference and awe—as Jonah delicately dances through such light-hearted topics as Russian war crimes, Nazis marching in Skokie (yes, again), and the controversy surrounding Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas.

This episode is sponsored by our friends at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Head to thefire.org/update and subscribe to The FIRE Update today. 

Show Notes:

– The Dispatch Podcast covers the leak

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (64)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    Good for you, Jonah, on defending your friend. Clarence Thomas seems to me, to have taken his disclosure obligations in a sloppy or careless manner. He probably relies on other people to fill out the forms, but he has to set the time aside to review them before signing and approving them. It seems pretty obvious to me that he's just not provided the right guidance or performed the right due-diligence in filling out the forms. He recycles the previous forms -- which most people do when they fill these kinds of disclosures out. But having had to fill similar forms out at various points in my career, you have to do them correctly. This doesn't mean Judge Thomas is corrupt. But his sloppiness deserves criticism because he should know better. He knows the Left is not going to give him *any* benefit of the doubt. His sloppiness played directly into the hands of his critics.

    Collapse
  2. Brandon Hartley

    I've gone back and forth in my thinking from that debate over free speech. I understand Jonah's position, but I don't have much faith in our local politicians to work things out well at all. In the 1950s, honestly, I'd have more faith that it would be handled responsibly more often than not. Now . . . not so much. But, on the other hand, I agree with Jonah's position that the slipper slope argument can be used all the time as a crutch to enable an extremist position. I'm surprised that Jonah didn't push that point further when discussing the limits that we do permit, say pornography during prime time TV. It seems to me that you can easily turn the slippery slope argument back on the free speech absolutist side: but what's the difference between 5pm and 9pm really, what's the difference between 18 and 16 years old. You could easily extend this to ban anything you want at any time of day! And, yet, that doesn't happen.

    On a different note, Jonah, you gotta get off Twitter, man. If you walk to work ever day and you pass by two blocks worth of fanatical beard-haters, people that boo'd you and fart in your general direction, making you stew in misanthropy for days, then you have a choice. Lower the quality of every damn day, or take a different freakin' route home! Twitter is a sewer and, objectively, a poor life choice. I just don't see what it is benefiting you. Yeah, maybe it does put you a few hours ahead of getting some hot information, but is that really worth it? Quality of life, my friend! I'm sure I'm not the only one that listened to your justified tirade and thought, "Really? There're that many idiots attacking you that are important enough to be worth listening to?" Nope, they ain't worth it.

    Collapse
  3. Mark

    It’s been fun to follow the Jonah/Sarah debate on free speech. When Jonah talks about localism, he sings from my hymnal. I’m persuadable. BUT, you have to answer Sarah’s question about delineating between Nazis and everyone else. Jonah insists that it can be done… Okay maybe, but how? Draw the line for us. What is a method of distinguishing Nazi speech from other speech that might be unpopular but worth protecting that can be agreed upon as a constitutional standard?

    Further, I love Jonah’s point about vertical separation of powers, to wit, that municipal governments should be able to regulate with a heavier hand than state and federal governments. But, you’d need a lot of new constitutional law, be it judge-made or otherwise. Con law as it exists now doesn’t give us the tools to do that kind of localism.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Twitter delenda est, Mr. Goldberg.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Svetlana Bekman

    Jonah, NYC now has a RAT CZAR!!

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Dan Baldwin

    Jonah, I just need to say this: there is no shame in your friendship with Harlan Crow. I believe you're right about him--I've certainly met my own fair share of very rich people with eccentric collections who wear their hearts on their sleeve. I'm a democrat and a liberal, you've earned and retained my respect. Listening to you on the podcast, and reading the excellent work of the Dispatch helps me sleep better at night--which I cannot say regarding any of the publications on my own side.

    I don't know if this means much, but there it is anyway. As to what happens with Clarence and Ginny Thomas, we will see. I have my suspicions and theories, and those are for another time and place. What I want to end with now is that it is admirable of you to stand up for a friend. Harlan Crow is lucky to have you as a friend.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Deb4711

      I agree. I was very to sorry to hear what Jonah went through last weekend as the result of his supporting Harlan Crow.

      Collapse
  7. Max Marshall

    As it is now, cultures can and do “draw bright lines around certain things” regarding speech, just not with the force of law. I’d argue that’s one of the best uses for social/cultural pressure. No one is saying we should treat nazi protesters like normal members of society with valuable things to say. We’re just saying that it’s a bad idea to use the legal system for something it’s not good at. I.e., to sort through every gradation of “hate speech”, which depending on who defines it, could include things like saying that “biological males (trans or otherwise) should not compete in women’s basketball,” apparently evidence that the ADF is a “hate group” in the eyes of the southern poverty law center.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Jonah, you make the best case I think one could against unfettered freedom of expression, but I still side with Charlie Cooke. I understand now what you were saying to Sarah about her celebration of the speech of the Nazis. Ultimately, I still don’t think the government should impose legal restrictions upon speech (with one notable exception, which involves crimes against children, for which I think the punishment should be extremely high).

    HOWEVER, I understand where you’re coming from and ultimately agree with the premise: the defense of free speech too often has devolved into a cover for a kind of relativism. And yet, NOT all speech is good. All speech is NOT created equal. All opinion is not equally valid and all content is not morally equivalent. A sermon from MLK and a speech by Hitler might both be legally permissible but they are not morally equal.

    To me, this relativism stems from a mistaken belief that too many people have that illegal=immoral and vice versa, therefore if something is legal it is moral. It’s unfashionable to say this, but I believe that pornography is immoral. I believe that many things that are legal, including many forms of expression, are immoral. In the end, I do not believe that human beings are the arbiters of that. God will judge these things.

    I know you’re not a Christian, but to paraphrase St. Paul, all things are legal but not all things are beneficial. He meant that Christ did away with the need to follow the Jewish law, making many behaviors permissible, however not all behaviors were equally worthy in the eyes of God. All speech may be legal but not all speech is virtuous or beneficial or worthy or even intellectually stimulating (there’s a lot of dumb speech).

    Russ Roberts talks often of the fact that just because he isn’t in favor of the government interfering in education or health care (or, well, anything), doesn’t mean he wants to relegate it to the private sector. He believes (as do you, Jonah, and I) in a strong role for civil society - institutions and associations that citizens build to address problems within their communities. You’ve defended the rights of private companies and private institutions to strictly regulate the type of speech they allow on their property/platform. I completely agree with that. While I generally prefer say Substack’s approach to speech to TikTok’s, I think private companies should essentially have complete and total discretion over what speech they do and don’t allow on their property.

    But it isn’t just private companies. Institutions of all sorts can and should perform private regulatory functions in the area of speech, especially with a view towards what speech is or is not good and right and healthy for a free society. In other words, I do not want the government to have a role in restricting the free speech of Nazis, however I fully support the right of businesses to fire Nazis (or anyone for any reason, for that matter), or refuse to sell to them. I fully support civic associations making efforts to counter the speech of Nazis (or other reprehensible types). Legally, we should have free speech. In our private lives, we should be forthright and unequivocal about the fact that there is no moral relativism and equivalence between speech. Just like in other areas, regulation of speech should be a private, competitive activity without a role for the government.Show less

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    It’s interesting that conversations about the 1st Amendment seem to always concern speech and/or religion. In this era of Charlotte, summer of 2020 riots, January 6th, and the Tennessee legislation to name a few, should we not include assembly?

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Javier Seravalli

    I think I was too harsh in my judgements of Harlan Crow and his relationships with the Dispatch in the previous podcast. But I still think that Clarence Thomas should have disclose his financial relationships with Mr. Crow. Other Justices have not identical by similar relationships with clients.
    The bigger problem is that nearly all 9 justices have relationships with groups and organization that are spread throughout interest groups and the economy. If recusal rules should be implemented the Court might end up having not enough Justices to have even a simple majority. Maybe allowing appellate Judges to take the place for the conflicted Justice would suffice.

    Collapse
Load More