Threats and apologia

The revived and supposedly improved left-wing news blog published an article this week announcing it has obtained a copy of the Social Security number of Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Even more worrisome is the fact that the article offers readers none-too-subtle instructions on how to obtain copies of said private information for themselves.

Sinema is in the doghouse with ultraliberals, including the people who write for Gawker, because she refuses to support specific left-wing policies and proposals. Sinema opposed, for example, President Joe Biden’s multitrillion-dollar “Build Back Better” spending scheme. She also opposes the abolition of the legislative filibuster. In response, the far Left has gone after Sinema with all manner of invective, criticism, and intimidation, including now this Gawker article.

“Last month, we filed a public records request for Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s divorce papers,” staffer Tarpley Hitt wrote. “The request came back with many enlightening insights, such as that the Congresswoman … kept her 1997 Nissan Maxima SE when she [divorced] in 1999.”

The report added, “The records also included some other intriguing information. Specifically, they included Sinema’s Social Security number, bank account information, and driver’s license number.”

What public interest does this story serve? Surely Gawker doesn’t expect us to believe the Maricopa County court’s filing and records collections methods merit coverage by a national news outlet.

There is something else going on here.

Take, for example, the following line: “Anyone modestly familiar with navigating legal databases can obtain a United States senator’s Social Security number for $11 in processing fees.”

The article also included a particularly telling passage, which read: “You can do a lot with a Social Security number. Unfortunately, if the number in question isn’t yours, most of what you can do with it is a felony. For example, we were hoping to run a credit report on Sinema. But that seems to be illegal. … We also considered wiring a deposit of $0.69 into her bank account. No theft there. It’s more like a campaign donation, and every dollar counts. But the legalities seemed iffy, and none of the lawyers Gawker contacted for comment were interested in indulging our largely stupid game.”

The unspoken message seems clear: We’re not saying you should try to get a copy of Sinema’s private information. But if you feel so inclined, here’s how to do it. Also, we’re not saying you should do anything nefarious with her data. But if you feel so inclined, here’s a list of all things you can do.

“Out of respect, we won’t be publishing her number,” Hitt wrote.

Sure. “Out of respect.” Gawker brags it has obtained Sinema’s private information. It details how you, the reader, can find said information. It then makes sure to note the senator’s personal data can be used to make her life difficult. But it’s not going to release the information itself — “out of respect.”

Wink! Wink!

In reality, the article’s breezy criticisms of Sinema, which are ever-present in the story, give the game away.

“You’re probably familiar with Social Security numbers,” the story added. “These nine-digit identifiers were created in 1936 as part of the New Deal, FDR’s suite of public works programs and financial reforms that laid the foundation for America’s weakening social safety net — and one that, if Sinema’s current voting record is any indicator, she would have likely opposed.”

Look, we get that you don’t like the senator. You hate her because you are a bitter partisan. You hate her because she doesn’t toe the party line. You also just so happen to have her private information, which you yourself won’t release, but will explain instead how it can be found and weaponized. It’s all a little too obvious.

“Sinema believes it’s important to know about Social Security numbers,” the article concluded. “We agree. It is important to Know Your Social Security. In this case, it just happens to be hers.”

Wink! Wink!

Chinese Communist apologia

Imagine falling so far down the rabbit hole of left-wing talking points that the line between GOP-backed election integrity legislation and literal genocide begins to blur.

You don’t have to imagine anymore! Just turn on your television.

Beijing’s 2022 Winter Olympics pose a tricky moral conundrum for U.S. audiences and lawmakers. On the one hand, curling is fun, but on the other, the hosting nation is a country-sized concentration camp.

What to do?

How are American viewers and politicians supposed to reconcile their desire to watch and participate in the Olympics with the fact that doing so directly benefits the country that is exterminating Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region?

According to certain deranged wonderbrains in Western media, the answer may lie in a related question: What difference, if any, is there between China and the U.S.? After all, how can the U.S. criticize China when states such as Texas recently passed voter integrity laws? How can America sit in judgment of China’s human rights atrocities when the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol wasn’t all that long ago?

“I can’t help but wonder about our inability to get the world to follow us on a diplomatic boycott of China on something that’s fundamental about, sort of, what we believe should be freedom bigger than financial ties,” mused NBC News’s Chuck Todd.

He added, referring obliquely to the Jan. 6 riot, “It makes me think, ‘Well, maybe the example of our democracy is not so good so people are thinking, why are we following you guys?’ It’s hard not to see that.”

At CNN, host Christiane Amanpour pushed back on Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, who said of China in a recent opinion article: “A million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and Kyrgyz are locked away in gulags. They are raped, tortured with electric batons, sterilized, and forced into abortions. Taiwan’s sovereignty is continually threatened. Hong Kong’s democracy is strangled.”

Wait a minute, said the CNN host. Some “from abroad” might respond to Young’s (accurate) characterization by saying, “Hold on a second. America’s preaching democracy to us but yet, you know, treating democracy rather cavalierly.”

According to Amanpour, a good recent example of the U.S.’s supposedly cavalier treatment of democracy includes the Republican National Committee’s censure of Republican Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois for joining the committee to investigate the Jan. 6 riot.

So, you know, some may say, “Who are we to judge China’s genocide of the Uyghurs?”

At ESPN, which has an informal “no criticizing China” policy, panelist and Northwestern University journalism professor J.A. Adande likewise questioned whether the U.S. has a leg to stand on insofar as human rights violations are concerned.

“Who are we to criticize China’s human rights records when we have ongoing attacks by the agents of the state against unarmed citizens and we’ve got assaults on the voting rights of our people of color in various states in this country?” he asked. “So, sports — I think it is possible and it’s necessary more than ever to just shut everything out if you are to enjoy the actual games themselves.”

He added, “Where can you choose that’s free? And look at some of the other recent hosts of the games, including Russia and some other recent places. It’s very hard to find a country that isn’t problematic when it comes to human rights, including here.”

You know what? Maybe Sen. Joseph McCarthy had a point.