And the Kristol Ball for Peerless Prognostication goes to . . .

Harvard Professor Jill Lepore for

“More attention has been paid to the unravelling of the G.O.P.; the Democratic Party is no less frayed.”  (The New Yorker, Feb. 22, 2016 at 23.)

Hmm, let's see what The New York Times said on March 19, 2016:

Coming soon in the Spy

A Spy Book Exclusive:  My Struggle by Steve Belichick.

It can't happen here

Speaking out against the “Jewish threat” to France was not new, nor was it the preserve of extremists of the Far Right.  In 1939, shortly before he took over as head of the CI,the French state news and information service, Jean Giraudoux wrote: “Hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi Jews who have escaped from the ghettos of Poland and Romania have arrived here.”  He went on to accuse “those hordes” of undercutting the wages of French workers, of not integrating, of being involved in illegal and corrupt dealings and, because of their poor health, of filling up the hospitals. [footnote omitted]  This widespread perception that France had been “invaded” by poor, desperate, Yiddish-speaking immigrants who would “swamp French culture” says more about the power of the media to play on people's fears than it does about the reality.  It has been estimated that between 1933 and 1939 only about 55,000 Jews of all nationalities arrived in France; . . .

– D. Drake, Paris at War at 130.

Why We Fight, Chapter 682

KABUL, Afghanistan — One defendant was the custodian of a holy shrine who trafficked in Viagra, condoms and pagan amulets, and who, when exposed, falsely accused a young woman named Farkhunda of burning a Quran. Another was an employee from an optician’s shop who joined a growing mob at the shrine and pummeled Farkhunda with a rock the size of a watermelon.

Another was an Afghan intelligence agent who bragged on Facebook that he had the honor of striking the fatal blow against her. Another man drove his car over her, twice.

Those men were sentenced to death last year in what briefly looked like a rare moment of justice for Afghan women, and other convictions seemed imminent. But in the months afterward, as detailed last year in an investigation by The New York Times, failures at every stage of the justice process surfaced. Clear leads did not turn into arrests, and tough sentences were drastically reduced — including for those four men identified at the center of the violence, who had their death sentences turned into as little as 10 years in prison.

Now, Afghanistan’s Supreme Court has confirmed the decision to vacate those four death sentences, and nine other defendants also had their sentences reduced.  . . .

Of 49 men originally arrested in Farkhunda’s killing, only 13 have so far been given serious penalties — nearly all of them greatly reduced on appeal. All the death sentences were vacated.

In addition, many activists claim that some of those most responsible — and identified in cellphone video of the killing — have still not been arrested. “I believe the main perpetrators of this case, those who were behind it, are still not brought to justice,” said a female senator, Anarkali Honaryar. . . .

The controversy surrounding the case led Farkhunda’s family to flee to neighboring Tajikistan, where they remain. “Not only do we oppose the decision of the Supreme Court, but the entire nation is dissatisfied,” said Farkhunda’s brother, Mujibullah Malikzada, reached by telephone in Dushanbe. “I’m not saying that the perpetrators must be lynched the way they lynched my sister. But all I want is fairness and justice, which has not been done.” . . .

— The New York Times, March 8, 2016

SPONSORED CONTENT: Time to trade in that 1925 Humber!

The Massachusetts Spy is made possible by a generous grant from Talbot-Branson Auto World, now celebrating its 91st Anniversary!

You read it first in the Spy

The Massachusetts Spy, January 9, 2016:

Vowing not to bow to political pressure, Mayor Marty Walsh and the Boston City Council today announced that they would consider carefully whether to approve a 29% retroactive pay increase for detectives that would cost the city $23 million on day one and an additional $9 million a year thereafter or instead to use that money to fund universal pre-kindergarten for poor Boston children.

The arbitrators' award also threatens a cascade of expensive labor contracts for other unionized city workers that could cost tens of millions more a year.

"We're not going to cave to political pressure from highly organized pressure groups like poor three-year-olds and their parents.  Instead, we're going to do what's best for the City, regardless of the political cost," Walsh said.

The Boston Globe, February 24, 2016:

The Boston City Council unanimously approved an arbitration award Wednesday that will grant police detectives a retroactive raise of nearly 29 percent, covering the past six years.

According to payroll data, the average police detective was paid $156,000 in 2015. That figure includes nearly $40,000 in overtime and $10,000 for construction details, which are paid largely by private companies.

After contract negotiations failed, an arbitrator ruled in December that detectives deserved a 29 percent salary increase from July 2010 to June 2016. The union and the Walsh administration are required to support the arbitrator’s award.

State law leaves final approval to the City Council, which could have rejected the contract and sent both sides back to the bargaining table. After approving the raise, councilors unanimously endorsed a letter to the mayor and unions warning that “escalating public safety salary increases threaten the long-term financial stability of the City of Boston.”

“We are looking for a different paradigm moving forward,” City Council President Michelle Wu said.

The Boston Globe, March 4, 2016:

Who knew that the paradigm for governing cities involves choosing among competing priorities?  Too bad they didn't teach that at the Harvard Law School.

Avoiding divisiveness, the Wilfred M. Romney way

A Utah man explains the difference between Donald Trump in 2012 and Donald Trump now:

In an apologetic-sounding addendum on Thursday, conveyed over Twitter, Mr. Romney said he would never have accepted Mr. Trump’s blessing in 2012 had Mr. Trump made the same kind of divisive remarks back then.  (NYT 3/3/16)

So what kind of rhetoric does Wilfred M. Romney regard as not divisive?  Here's the New York Times report on Trump's endorsement, as published on February 3, 2012.

A day after Mitt Romney got himself in trouble by saying that he does not really worry about the very poor, he received the endorsement of the billionaire Donald Trump on Thursday, framed by gold plating in Mr. Trump’s hotel just off the Strip. As with all things Donald, the midday spectacle seemed to promise a Circus Circus of bombast, chaos and self-promotion — big surprises, towering supermodels, flying elephants and all that. . . .

Still, the proceeding did not lack for surreal element, as Mr. Romney acknowledged immediately. “There are some things that you can’t imagine happening in your life,” he said. “And this is one of them.” . . .

In the event, Mr. Trump was all-in for Mr. Romney and on his best behavior at the lectern. He hit no off-message subjects (i.e. President Obama’s country of origin) or signature notes (“you’re fired”) that could have embarrassed Mr. Romney (“I like firing people”).

He endorsed Mr. Romney with the broad-stroke simplicity of a parent describing a superhero to a scared child. “He’s not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love,” he said. .  . .

By remarks’ end, the big question remaining was whether the Mane Men would consummate their alliance with a hug. Nope, no hug. Instead, they locked in a long and showy handshake that — by the looks of Mr. Romney’s slight cringe and pulling-away posture — seemed like it might have hurt a little.

Well, that went well.  It's not as if Trump had engaged in any divisive drivel before 2/3/12, right?  Consider his typically thoughtful and temperate response to Gail Collins as published on April 8, 2011 (all of which was a load of bollocks, BTW):

Even before Gail Collins was with The New York Times, she has written nasty and derogatory articles about me.  Actually, I have great respect for Ms. Collins in that she has survived so long with so little talent. Her storytelling ability and word usage (coming from me, who has written many best sellers), is not at a very high level. More importantly, her facts are wrong!

As far as her comments on the so-called “birther” issue, I don't need Ms. Collins's advice. There is a very large segment of our society who believe that Barack Obama, indeed, was not born in the United States. His grandmother from Kenya stated, on tape, that he was born in Kenya and she was there to watch the birth. His family in Honolulu is fighting over which hospital in Hawaii he was born in -- they just don't know.

He has not been able to produce a “birth certificate” but merely a totally unsigned “certificate of live birth” -- which is totally different and of very little significance. Unlike a birth certificate, a certificate of live birth is very easy to obtain. Equally of importance, there are no records in Hawaii that a Barack Hussein Obama was born there -- no bills, no doctors names, no nurses names, no registrations, no payments, etc. As far as the two notices placed in newspapers, many things could have happened, but some feel the grandparents put an ad in order to show that he was a citizen of the U.S. with all of the benefits thereto. Everybody, after all, and especially then, wanted to be a United States citizen.

The term used by Ms. Collins -- “birther” -- is very derogatory and is meant in a derogatory way. Had this been George Bush or almost any other President or Presidential aspirant, they would never have been allowed to attain office, or would have been thrown out of office very quickly.

For some reason, the press protects President Obama beyond anything or anyone I have ever seen. What they don't realize is that if he was not born in the United States, they would have uncovered the greatest “scam" in the history of our country.  In other words, they would become the hottest writer since Watergate, or beyond.

Open your eyes, Gail, there's at least a good chance that Barack Hussein Obama has made mincemeat out of our great and cherished Constitution!

DONALD J. TRUMP
New York, April 7, 2011

Nothing divisive here, according to Wilfred M. Romney.