"You can hear a pin drop in the WaPo editorial room this evening, as eight people try hard not to think about '8-digit punitive damages for libel.'"

So says the highest-rated comment on "Market awarded $44M in racism dispute with Oberlin College" an AP story that ran in The Washington Post, and the only WaPo story about the jury's award of punitive damages. The same AP story is also the only coverage of the news in the NYT.

I wanted to post on this news and just wanted something factual and journalistic, and I was disappointed that the 2 main newspapers I read just put up this rather thin AP story:

A jury in Lorain County awarded David Gibson, son Allyn Gibson and Gibson’s Bakery, of Oberlin, $33 million in punitive damages Thursday. That comes on top of an award a day earlier of $11 million in compensatory damages.

Problems between the Gibsons, their once-beloved bakery and the college began in November 2016 after Allyn Gibson, who is white, confronted a black Oberlin student who had shoplifted wine. Two other black students joined in and assaulted Gibson, police said.

The day after the arrests, hundreds of students protested outside the bakery .

The extra space between "bakery" and the period is present at both the WaPo and the NYT. That's how little attention they paid to this story — not even rudimentary copy editing.

Members of Oberlin College’s student senate published a resolution saying Gibson’s had “a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment.”

When news of the protests spread online, bikers and counterprotesters soon converged on the town to jeer students and make purchases from Gibson’s. Conservatives derided the students on social media as coddled “snowflakes” with a mob mentality, while students attacked the store as a symbol of systemic racism....

A direct quote — "snowflakes" — for those "conservatives." Which conservatives? Who? Did they all say the word "snowflakes"? Were they all taking a derisive tone? This is a story about the seriousness of damage caused by free-swinging attacks, so you might want to rein it in. Notice the students were concerned about "systemic racism" and their tone isn't characterized nastily, but they were involved in causing harm that the jury soberly examined and found deserving of a $33 million punitive damages award. And conservatives are casually smeared, made to look like they get on social media and jeer and name-call.

The AP article ends with a grab-bag of factoids:

Oberlin has long been a bastion of liberalism. During the 1830s, it became one of the first colleges to admit blacks and women. During the 1850s, it became a stop on the Underground Railroad.

Today, about 15% of Oberlin’s 8,300 residents are black.

More recently, news articles quoted students decrying the school dining hall’s sushi and Vietnamese banh mi sandwiches as cultural appropriation.

The Gibsons’ attorneys said the college, which charges $70,000 a year for tuition and room and board, has an $887 million endowment and can easily afford to pay the family what they are owed.

Oberlin’s tree-lined campus is roughly 35 miles (56 kilometers) southwest of downtown Cleveland.

And there's your NYT and WaPo coverage of this story. Thin, undigested AP material. And you won't find it on the home page. I had to do a search to find it.

IN THE COMMENTS: wendybar said:

The best coverage anywhere was from Professor William A. Jacobson @ Legal Insurrection!! The Main Stream Media is the propaganda arm of the Democrats so of course this doesn't fit the agenda.

Here's the Legal Insurrection post about the punitive damages verdict. Excerpt:

“We never wanted any of this to go to court and have to spend all this time in litigation,” David Gibson said exclusively to the Legal Insurrection. David Gibson is the lead plaintiff in the case and is the principal owner of the business.

“People have no idea on how much stress this has had on our family and business for almost three years. But from the beginning, we just didn’t understand why they were punishing us for something we had nothing to do with.”

“We appreciate that the jury understood what we had gone through, and I think they were saying to the entire country that we can’t allow this to happen to hard-working, small business people whose lives are defined by their business, their family, and their community,” he said.” What the college was doing was trying to take away all those things from us, and we fought hard against that.”

Left Bank of the Charles said:

Here’s some better reporting. The college seems to have thought that claims of poverty would work in its defense against the punitive damages.

He links to "Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College: Plaintiffs rest in second day of punitive phase (UPDATED)" (Houston Chronicle):

With its endowment as it is now," [Oberlin President Carmen Twillie Ambar] said the college can survive, but “survival isn’t sustainability”.... Of that $1.4 billion, the college has an $887 million endowment — more than two-thirds of which can’t be spent by the college because of the wishes of the donors who provided it... The largest check the college could write if it had to would be for $49.1 million from its unrestricted endowment funds....

[Lee Plakas, the lead attorney for the Gibsons] told jurors that “defamatory words in our country have become weapons as damaging as guns that shoot bullets”... “More damaging than bullets once you’re defamed... There is no procedure to remove those words.”...

He recalled for jurors how Oberlin College administrators labeled the Gibsons and their supporters “idiots,” discussed in internal texts and emails how they wanted to “unleash the students” or “rain fire and brimstone” on Gibson’s and how Meredith Raimondo, the college’s vice president and dean of students, referred to the college’s business with Gibson’s as the “stupid bakery order.”...

“Let’s teach the institution not to put gas on the fires,” Plakas told the jury, also asking them to consider recommending Miraldi award the Gibsons money to cover attorney fees. “They’re not above the law. They can’t make up their own rules.”...

"What was America in 1492 but a Loose-Fish, in which Columbus struck the Spanish standard by way of waifing it for his royal master and mistress?"

"What was Poland to the Czar? What Greece to the Turk? What India to England? What at last will Mexico be to the United States? All Loose-Fish. What are the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the World but Loose-Fish? What all men's minds and opinions but Loose-Fish? What is the principle of religious belief in them but a Loose-Fish? What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? What is the great globe itself but a Loose-Fish? And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?"

From Chapter 89 "Moby-Dick" — "Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish" — which I'm reading this morning because of one of the best comments I've ever read on this blog, written by Left Bank of the Charles, on a post about an article in Slate in which a man complains about the difficulty making money by picking up and recharging the electric scooters of Santa Monica.

(The earlier post gives you a longer passage from "Moby-Dick" and the connection to the electric scooter problem, but new comments would be better on this new post.)

"The rep made it sound like there was just free money sitting on the sidewalk each night, just waiting for me to scoop up."

"Bird [the electric scooter sharing service] sent me three chargers, and a peppy rep gave me a quick briefing: Each night I was to switch on the newly enabled 'charger' mode in the Bird app and collect scooters flagged as available for charging. Although juicing up most Birds would give me $5, ones that had been AWOL for a while became progressively more valuable, up to $20.... But it turns out the charging system is akin to a real-life Pokémon Go, albeit one rife with cheating. The app purports to tell you where nearby chargeable scooters are, but in reality that’s rarely the case. Duplicitous collectors have created a thriving ecosystem of stockpiling, hiding, and decoying that makes it well-nigh impossible to find a scooter in need of charging...."

From "For the Birds/I spent two weeks trying to charge electric scooters for extra cash. What I got was a lot of headaches" (Slate).

IN THE COMMENTS: Left Bank of the Charles said:

This guy needs to read Moby Dick on the subject of loose fish and fast fish. He assumes the guys in the pickup trucks are ripping off the company, but maybe their strategy is to collect scooters as quickly as possible, and then take the time to log them when they get back to their charging stations. That may be working perfectly well for the company.

And here it is, Chapter 89 of Moby-Dick, "Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish." Excerpt:

I. A Fast-Fish belongs to the party fast to it.

II. A Loose-Fish is fair game for anybody who can soonest catch it. But what plays the mischief with this masterly code is the admirable brevity of it, which necessitates a vast volume of commentaries to expound it.

First: What is a Fast-Fish? Alive or dead a fish is technically fast, when it is connected with an occupied ship or boat, by any medium at all controllable by the occupant or occupants,—a mast, an oar, a nine-inch cable, a telegraph wire, or a strand of cobweb, it is all the same. Likewise a fish is technically fast when it bears a waif, or any other recognised symbol of possession; so long as the party waifing it plainly evince their ability at any time to take it alongside, as well as their intention so to do....

Is it not a saying in every one's mouth, Possession is half of the law: that is, regardless of how the thing came into possession? But often possession is the whole of the law. What are the sinews and souls of Russian serfs and Republican slaves but Fast-Fish, whereof possession is the whole of the law? What to the rapacious landlord is the widow's last mite but a Fast-Fish? What is yonder undetected villain's marble mansion with a doorplate for a waif; what is that but a Fast-Fish? What is the ruinous discount which Mordecai, the broker, gets from the poor Woebegone, the bankrupt, on a loan to keep Woebegone's family from starvation; what is that ruinous discount but a Fast-Fish? What is the Archbishop of Savesoul's income of 100,000 pounds seized from the scant bread and cheese of hundreds of thousands of broken-backed laborers (all sure of heaven without any of Savesoul's help) what is that globular 100,000 but a Fast-Fish. What are the Duke of Dunder's hereditary towns and hamlets but Fast-Fish? What to that redoubted harpooneer, John Bull, is poor Ireland, but a Fast-Fish? What to that apostolic lancer, Brother Jonathan, is Texas but a Fast-Fish? And concerning all these, is not Possession the whole of the law? But if the doctrine of Fast-Fish be pretty generally applicable, the kindred doctrine of Loose-Fish is still more widely so. That is internationally and universally applicable.

What was America in 1492 but a Loose-Fish, in which Columbus struck the Spanish standard by way of waifing it for his royal master and mistress? What was Poland to the Czar? What Greece to the Turk? What India to England? What at last will Mexico be to the United States? All Loose-Fish.

What are the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the World but Loose-Fish? What all men's minds and opinions but Loose-Fish? What is the principle of religious belief in them but a Loose-Fish? What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? What is the great globe itself but a Loose-Fish? And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?

80s Dusty.

I love Dusty Springfield, but have absolutely no memory of this...



... and I watched a lot of MTV in the 80s. I remember the Pet Shop Boys, chiefly this, but never knew they got together with Dusty Springfield.

Why am I looking at Dusty Springfield this morning? It was a strange journey! Routine checking of Instapundit took me to a Campus Reform piece titled "Student gov to pursue mandatory LGBT 'ally training' for faculty." It says LGBT in the headline, but the text refers to "LGBTQIA+." I figured the A was "asexual" — correctly, I see — and I wondered why do people who want nothing need anything? Recognition? Hey, what about me? I need nothing.

And you know me, I like to say Better than nothing is a high standard. I think there's too much bad sex going on and recommend valuing nothing as pretty high on the list of things you might want.

I played my favorite nothing song, "Oh! Sweet Nuthin'" by The Velvet Underground, and thought about other great nothing songs. "All or Nothing at All," "Nothing Was Delivered," "I Who Have Nothing," "Nothing Compares to U." Here's a whole big list, so you don't have to tell me I "forgot" any nothing songs, and you can find your own favorites. Maybe you like "Money For Nothing" or "King Nothing."

With that list, I stumbled into 80s Dusty. The 80s look and feel so anaesthetized. That hair, that makeup, the shoulder pads — such deadness. I don't think nothing has to be like that. The antidote is this 70s nothing:



IN THE COMMENTS: Left Bank of the Charles helps out with 2 great nothing songs where the nothing isn't in the title: Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" ("Nothing really matters") and The Talking Heads's "Heaven" ("Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens").

"Hillary Clinton is considering having multiple people play the role of Donald Trump in debate prep... and Alan Dershowitz... would love to do it."

But he says he hasn't been asked yet.

Dershowitz... said he is well-suited for the role “if they were looking for a loudmouth New Yorker. Of course I would do it if asked — I think I could do a pretty good Donald Trump impression....”

It's not like casting the role for a movie! I should think the key would be making the kinds of statements and arguments that might come up. I suppose part of it is creating the feeling of the opponent's presence, especially if there was concern that your candidate could be intimidated or provoked. But I have the feeling Hillary Clinton is so used to standing her ground and making her points and keeping her standard expression that imitating Trump's bluster is not very important.

And it could even backfire. Let's say you take somebody — Dershowitz, perhaps — who hates Trump and is disgusted by him. Now, he thinks he can embody that object of his contempt. Is he really going to create the effect that the real Trump will present on stage at that debate or will he give Hillary a false sense of her opponent as someone who can be fought in ways that won't look right when the real event happens? She might get the idea that tilting her head back and smirking and occasionally shaking her head or laughing will get us viewers on her side. But he's going to have a fake Hillary to practice with and he'll have worked out some strategies. Can Dershowitz — through the fog of contempt — perceive what these will be and provide her with an opportunity to work out an effective style?

A couple days ago, I said "Watch out for Nice Trump. What will Hillary do if Nice Trump arrives on the scene?" And in the comments Left Bank of the Charles said: "As for Hillary, I'm sure she'd love it if Nice Trump shows up for the debates. But I'd advise her to expect the rope-a-dope."

So... she might prepare for the blustery jackass of the Trump hater's fever dreams, then be surprised by a kinder, gentler Trump. But if Nice Trump arrives on the debate set, it may be a trick to lure her into debating the wrong way, and late in the debate — perhaps when she's tired (or getting too comfortable) — he may surprise her in some unpredictable way.

On CNN's "State of the Union" yesterday, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook said they haven't come up with someone to play Donald Trump in the mock debates. The moderator Dana Bash tried to get him to talk about the "incredibly delicate task" — which I think referred to confronting Hillary with very negative material, such as her lying and her husband's treatment of women. But Mook just used the question as an opportunity to attack Trump:

It's very hard to find someone to mimic the reckless temperament and the hateful instincts and divisive instincts of Donald Trump.... The challenge is finding someone who -- who can recreate the kind of reckless temperament, the kind of hateful language and divisive language that's become Trump's hallmark.

But it's funny that Dershowitz is eagerly waving his hand and saying me! me!

Dershowitz has a new book, "Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters." And if you enjoy that pun, let me guess: You are over 70 and not a woman. But if you are under 50 and a Hillary supporter, it might be just the thing to trigger you into thinking yes, this is the jerk who can play Trump.

ADDED: There's no reason to do a mock debate with someone acting like the Trump people won't like. If that's the Trump who shows up for the real thing, he'll hurt himself. Imagine the best Trump, the one who can win the election. That's what he's trying to do right now. You don't want to get caught flat-footed, like Obama in the first debate in 2012.