How Do You Solve a Problem Like Hasan? Mamdani’s Moral Universe. Columnist: Trump Has the Data on Data Centers. Would Putin Gamble on Attacking a NATO Country? Schoen: Dems Will Die on ‘Trans’ Hill. More
Trendy New York magazine this week published a story that has Dems, who until recently gleefully dreamed of a big, rolling blue wave, feeling unsettled: “The Hasan Piker Michigan Mess Isn’t Going Away” is the New York mag headline.
Piker, you’ll remember, is the radical commentator who said the United States “deserved” September 11 and subsequently campaigned with Michigan’s Democratic senatorial hopeful Abdul El-Sayed, who has suddenly taken to referring to Mr. Piker as “some Twitch streamer in California.” El-Sayed devoted much of his week to dealing with Piker-related matters.
As is often the case, the (barely) satirical Babylon Bee had the audacity to provide the best summation of the Piker Problem:
Democrats Distance Themselves from Hasan Piker After Realizing He’s Wearing a Suicide Vest
Meanwhile, Republicans are urged not to count their chickens before they hatch. “Can Anyone Beat Abdul El-Sayed?” is the headline on a Free Press story by Noah Bernstein. “The Democratic establishment tried and failed to stop him in Michigan’s Senate primary. Will Republicans fare any better?” asks Bernstein.
Bernstein suggests why El-Sayed’s opponents “struggle to slow him down”:
The public got another look at why when El-Sayed joined Fox News host Jesse Watters for a lengthy interview on Monday. He dodged a question about transgender surgeries for minors, instead asking Watters if he is circumcised. He deflected another about sharia law, pointing out that no one dreads the spread of Catholic canon law. And when asked about his support for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), he answered that voters are more worried about the price of gas and groceries—a line he deployed deftly time and again.
Ms. Must would say that the struggle is to pin him down.
We first met Mr. Piker when he campaigned for and advised now-Mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani. With that in mind, a fascinating piece in City Journal entitled “Mamdani’s Moral Universe” is of special interest. As author Zineb Riboua points out, Mamdani’s intellectual foundation is built on Israel, Third Worldism, and the politics of grievance:
As formal decolonization advanced, however, the original target—imperialism—largely disappeared. The Third-Worldist ideology then migrated into Western universities and domestic political movements. There it was repurposed, functioning today less as a foreign policy doctrine than as a moral lens through which all political legitimacy is assigned. In this framework, Israel occupies the role of an imperial oppressor, while Palestinians—and, by extension, other perceived victims of Western power—serve as privileged victims. The result is a politics of grievance that is now the operating language of a rising generation of American progressives.
The Islamist dimension of this phenomenon warrants special attention. … The Islamist-friendly current within the American Left, embodied by activists like Linda Sarsour, has therefore found expression through anti-Israel polemics, which, in depicting Israel as a settler-colonial project requiring decolonization, translates religious commitments to the Ummah (wider Muslim community) into terms more readily accepted by a secular electorate.
Sympathy for the Devil. Taking note of Mamdani’s moral universe, the New York Post cover this morning features Mamdani’s condolences sent on the death at Rikers of a career criminal who previously hacked to death the father of two. Before the gruesome hacking of a victim, the late Clarence Woodward had a rap sheet with 30 arrests. The Mayor of New York was “deeply saddened” by this scumbag’s death. The family of the murdered father was not pleased. Talk about a topsy-turvy moral universe.
What Is It about those Jasmines? Don’t miss the screaming “Mean Girls” meltdown of Oklahoma Democratic Senate nominee N’Kiyla Jasmine Thomas, which reportedly led several critics to muse on candidate quality. Meanwhile, Florida’s socialist candidate for the U.S. Senate, Angie Nixon, says, “Let me be clear, we are in chains.” (Did she have speech input from Joe Biden?)
“Trump Follows the Data on Data Centers” is the headline on Matthew Continetti’s column. President Trump has been accused of going against his MAGA base on data centers. Continetti writes:
Rather than betraying MAGA, then, Mr. Trump’s support for data centers reflects his unique blend of markets and mercantilism. He may be on the unpopular side of a boiling issue. But he’s willing to take a political hit in exchange for strengthening Washington’s position against Beijing.
Data centers house the computing power that drives this technological marvel. Nor are tech companies the only winners. Skilled labor is required to build data centers. The pay is good, employment is steady and job sites are fixed in place. If you think building a data center is tough, try moving it. Union official Don Slaiman writes that data centers “are the best opportunity in generations for blue-collar workers to attain a portion of the American dream.” …
I don’t pretend that data centers are cost-free. Nothing is. But the costs that data centers might carry in land use, water use, electricity prices, noise pollution and unsightliness are either overstated or fixable. Creative policy is called for. Not moratoriums that would make America poor and weak.
In her Friday column headlined “The Media’s Lawfare Enabling,” Kimberley Strassel writes about how journalists who knew better cheered on meritless lawsuits against President Trump. “How long is the public meant to treat the press’s pearl-clutching as genuine, rather than part of a campaign to undermine the administration and the credibility of the high court?’ Strassel asks. In a similar vein, Ilya Shapiro argues at City Journal that “‘reform” has become the Left’s preferred remedy for losing cases at the nation’s highest court.
“Would Putin Really Tangle With NATO?” is the headline on a Wall Street Journal editorial. Would Putin calculate that President Trump would not come to Europe’s aid? the editors ask. You wouldn’t be jumping to false conclusions if you suggested that CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s semi-cloak-and-dagger trip to Russia had something to do with this issue.
The jury is now deliberating in the Lindsay Clancy trial (they might reach a verdict today, but I doubt it). USA TODAY columnist Nicole Russell originally could understand why so many women felt bad for Clancy. But then Russell was surprised that Clancy was being turned into a martyr:
Reactions online, though, fed by an algorithm hungry for emotional outbursts and likes, have opened a dark window into what many women are actually feeling about motherhood and Clancy. It goes well beyond a dose of justice or a touch of compassion and has devolved into solidarity with, even veneration of, the mother of three.
From her wheelchair and without a single word of testimony, Clancy has whipped up a frenzied fandom of women who have made her a martyr. It’s dangerous and disgusting.
Yes, it’s a hill they’re willing to die on: Democratic Pollster Doug Schoen explores a question that is mystifying to some: “Why Democrats cannot break free from the far left’s transgender demands.” Schoen:
Simply put, the DSA’s strong opposition to legislation banning biological males from competing in women’s sports has come to define where the national Democratic Party stands, much to its detriment.
Huh? I’m confused. There’s still a sub rosa report/rumor going around that the WNBA already has had a “trans” identifying player on its roster. Meanwhile, the radical WARPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) appears to be trying to distance itself from its own claims. That would help WARPATH in court.
Short Takes. He’s not just a Ragin’ Cajun; he’s a Bluesky rage-oholic, according to Jonathan Turley. … National Review’s witty Jeffrey Blehar is not on board with Lake America. … But nobody should be on board with Canadian Broadcasts’ latest dictum: CBC has directed reporters not to call the September 11 attacks on the United States “terrorist attacks.” I don’t know what to say.
