The real victim is Jasmine Crockett.

I'm reading "The Colbert-CBS spat is about overregulation/Keeping the equal-time rule in place is a political choice" — gift link. That's by the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.

I remember writing about FCC regulation when I was a law student — I graduated in 1981 — and even back then the argument was made that times have changed and the basis for regulation — the scarcity of the airwaves — was being overtaken by technology — then, cable TV. I remember using the phrase "based on a future that has not yet arrived," because cable TV was expensive and it wasn't even available everywhere. But now, it's 45 years later, and the FCC is still pressuring broadcast media avoid the most egregious sort of political imbalance.

The equal-time rule hasn’t been vigorously enforced in recent years, reflecting its obsolescence. But as with many outdated business regulations, Congress hasn’t bothered to revoke it.

The news of authenticity.

1. "Museum of Authenticity Annex Closes, Exhibits Feature is Expanded in Original Location" (Ark Valley Voice): "The Museum of Authenticity has offered unique, curated exhibits of art and utilitarian artifacts in Salida for years. While the larger annex off of F Street has closed, the museum itself has not gone anywhere...." 

2. "Time To Get Serious About Workplace Authenticity" (Forbes): "Think of your favorite leaders, whether political icons, sports captains, or CEOs. How would you objectively measure their authenticity? There is no baseline. No benchmark. If you find Trump authentic you probably adhere with his values; same goes for Obama. By the same token, not many Trump fans would find Obama authentic, and vice-versa."

3. "The authenticity double standard is negatively impacting female leaders/We tell brands that humanity drives commercial success, so why do we still advise women leaders to suppress theirs?" (MarketingWeek):

"My implicit equation of attention is: Curiosity plus conflict equals attention."

Says Ezra Klein, in his podcast, which is titled "Can James Talarico Reclaim Christianity for the Left?" (NYT).

Talarico is on the podcast because, as Klein puts it, he "was breaking through on TikTok, Instagram and viral videos" and "ended up on Joe Rogan’s podcast — the first significant Democrat that Rogan seemed interested in, in a very long time."

And now "Talarico is running for Senate in Texas. He’s running in a primary with Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett...." There's no other mention of Crockett in the article. Why not? Talarico was never invited to speak against her, but this podcast is clearly boosting him, which is inherently against her. I presume hardcore Democrats, focused on winning the Texas Senate seat, don't want Crockett to win the primary.

The question isn't really Can James Talarico Reclaim Christianity for the Left? It's Can James Talarico Seize the Nomination from Crockett?

Ezra Klein says: "The biggest concern I hear about you in Texas is that you’re sort of a liberal’s idea of what a Christian politician should be." 

And, really, we all know the way liberals use Christianity... whether they make viral video or not. But Talarico has advanced to where he is because he put the standard argument into the form of viral video.

But the Talarico's video that's out there includes things that can be cherry-picked and used against him. Klein confronts him with clips that were used in an attack ad against him (not by Crockett, but by another candidate, Terry Virts, who has dropped out). 

Talarico Clip 1: Modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six.

Talarico Clip 2: God is nonbinary. I find this to be a deeply offensive bill.

Voice-over: James Talarico is talking about the bill that would ban biological men from playing in women’s sports. Remember this ad?

Voice-over from archival clip: Biological men compete against our girls in their sports. Kamala is for they/them.

Voice-over: The same ads will be played by Ken Paxton. The result will be: U.S. Senator Ken Paxton. James Talarico owes it to us to tell us how he’s going to answer these attack ads.

Klein asks: "So how are you going to answer those attack ads?" And Talarico stalls for time: "Man, the music was real scary." Which isn't how you're going to answer successfully.

Klein has to push him even to try to answer. He says: "You can talk about love all you want. But the idea is to say you’re out of step with Texans, and they’re not going to feel loved by someone they feel doesn’t agree with them."

And then Talarico talks not about Christianity or love, but about local control of decisionmaking and "common sense." 

Jasmine Crockett hits the ground running.

 

That's one of the best political ads I've ever seen. This video is excellent too:

"I think that I should contribute money to Jasmine Crockett and then let everybody know that she also took money from Jeffrey Epstein."

Said Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, cracking an excellent joke, after Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) "boasted on the House floor this week that she was 'gonna expose it all' after her discovery that 'somebody named Jeffrey Epstein' donated to the campaign of former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY)."

From "Dr. Jeffrey Epstein – the Long Island neurosurgeon Jasmine Crockett confused with notorious pedophile – floats epic revenge he could exact on the congresswoman" (NY Post).

"In her rant, the Texas Democrat strongly implied that the Manhasset doctor’s April and August 2020 contributions to Zeldin, who is now head of the Environmental Protection Agency, were actually from the convicted pedophile – despite the fact that the $1,000 donations were made months after the disgraced financier died in a Manhattan jail cell."

"There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool."

"Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in the waning days of Brat summer. She went on the popular podcast 'Call Her Daddy.' Tim Walz’s outdoorsy drip led to a Chappell Roan-inspired camo trucker hat. The memes were flowing, and the party’s mood was high...."

That's the beginning of a NYT article called "What Is 'Dark Woke'? Democrats are trying out a new attitude. It’s provocative, edgy and perilously toeing the line of not being too offensive." The author is Jack Crosbie.

How painfully embarrassing to remember things that were painfully embarrassing at the time. But the media tried to palm it off as "cool" last summer... back when they were pretending America would vicariously appreciate Kamala's "joy." I'd have thought no one would be so cruel as to bring up "Brat summer" again. It was so insanely delusional. And that is not cool. 

But let's keep reading.

With Donald J. Trump back in the White House.... so-called masculine energy... seems like the dominant [culture].... As liberals try to get their groove back...

Ugh. 

... some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric... “Dark woke.”

Is this like "Dark Brandon"? Why, yes it is: 

"We have no coherent message. This guy is psychotic, and there’s so much, but everything that underlines it is white supremacy and hate."

"There needs to be a message that is clear on at least the underlying thing that comes with all of this."

Said Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, quoted in "'We Have No Coherent Message': Democrats Struggle to Oppose Trump/More than 50 interviews with Democratic leaders revealed a party struggling to decide what it believes in, what issues to prioritize and how to confront an aggressive right-wing administration" (NYT).

It was crafty of Trump to cause incoherence by seeming "psychotic." Or... it was inept of Democrats to allow their idea that Trump is mentally disordered to justify their own mental disorder. Crockett seems to think that coherence can be restored by simply and forthrightly centering the message on the other side's "white supremacy and hate."

"I think he’s praying. But if he is sleeping, you know, he certainly looks pretty while he sleeps."

Said Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, reacting to Congressman Robert Garcia, who'd had some reason to point out that Trump seems to be sleeping some of the time at his criminal trial, reported at Mediaite.

This exchange took place at the same House Oversight Committee meeting where Marjorie Taylor Greene sneered at Jasmine Crockett's false eyelashes and Crockett shot back with a butch-phobic remark about MTG's body.

The most outré quotes come from the Oversight Committee.

"If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach blond, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?"

Said Representative Jasmine Crockett, during a meeting of the House Oversight Committee, referring to Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who had just said to her "I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you’re reading."

I've seen the video, and now I'm reading the NYT article, "The Ugly Effect of Physical Insults/A recent congressional meeting devolved into a back-and-forth that reflects a changing norm in politics — one that rarely makes anybody look good."

I don't approve of the unprofessionalism, but if we're just comparing insults and taking into account that Crockett didn't start it, I want to say "bleach blond, bad-built butch body" is impressive — with 6 B's in a row and the unforgettable "butch body." And can we analyze the extent to which "bad-built butch body" violates the norms of progressive speech. It's not just body shaming, it's expressing contempt for a woman's failure to have a body in the stereotypical female form. That's transphobic (in the broad sense).