All posts by Rand Simberg

Hillary’s Email

She’s been getting away with this kind of thing for decades. Why wouldn’t she think she can continue?

…the episode already confirms what attentive observers have long known: If the Clintons return to the White House, we can expect more suspicious secrets, stonewalling, and opaqueness, much as we’ve seen in the past. Voters have been given ample warning.

Yup. And unlike the nineties, when the media was able to continually cover for them, there are a lot more ways of getting the news.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Sure looks like an attempt to evade federal law.”

[Update mid-morning]

Archive of Hillary’s emails discovered.

Heh.

[Late-morning update]

Chappaqua, we have a problem:

Well, all these things are horrible, but then we knew (Nos. 1 and 2) that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s ethical compass has been broken for years and that they consider laws and transparency to be for the little people. I would argue, however, that it is the third that is really the worst if Hillary Clinton intends, as everyone is certain she does, to run for president. This is, of course, the most important national security issue of our time, and if she has neither the courage nor conviction to tell us what she thinks, she arguably shouldn’t be running for the job as commander in chief.

Needless to say, the political media are focused on the e-mails and not the nukes, but then foreign policy is only superficially considered and dimly understood. Whatever the emphasis, however, it is hard to escape the flashing red lights in front of party regulars and activists: Do you really need Clinton so badly that you would crown her now as the nominee? Wouldn’t it be better to have someone with no responsibility for the most egregious foreign policy disaster of our time (i.e. allowing Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability)?

They don’t think it would be a policy disaster.

[Afternoon update]

The Clinton email scandal highlights the utter inadequacy of all the Benghazi investigations.

I think that Congressman Gowdy is going to have some interesting questions for her Highness.

“Liberal” Academia

Kurt Schlichter has a modest proposal:

Understand that the purpose of modern American “education” is not to educate students. It is primarily to provide cushy, subsidized sinecures for liberal administrators and faculty while, secondarily, providing a forum to indoctrinate soft young minds in the liberal fetishes du jour. Actually educating students is hard, and a meaningful education is anathema to liberalism. In the liberals’ ideal world, the universities would simply fester with leftist nonsense and not even bother with trying to teach their charges anything at all. And today, it’s pretty close to being the liberals’ ideal world.

…As I discuss in my book Conservative Insurgency, and as others like Glenn Reynolds have observed, with modern academia we normal Americans are paying to support a suppurating abscess in our culture that, left untreated, will kill its host. We need to lance this boil and drain the leftist pus.

Except there’s nothing liberal about them.

[Update a few minutes later]

This is the kind of thing he’s talking about: Leftists outraged that a university won’t police the attire of students off campus.

As I said, there is nothing liberal about this. It’s totalitarian.