#New York’s double-mask morons and other commentary

Culture critic: New York’s Double-Mask Morons

At Spectator USA, Chadwick Moore notices something peculiar about New Yorkers who wear two masks: “The inner layer is a standard blue surgical mask, while the outer sheath is reserved for fashion or political expression. Blue mask first, followed by a chic, understated black ninja mask, a sequin Aztec pattern or a simple printed proclamation such as ‘VOTE!’ ” Why? The contrast effect signals that “the person is, in fact, wearing two masks, in case you were wondering.” Another message they’re sending: “Get away from me! I watch too much news and I am unwell. Take me in your dwarven arms, Fauci, I’m yours.” A third: “They ­aspire to join a far more totalitarian society, and they’ll go that extra mile, or layer of cloth, to be first in line.”

From the left: Weaponizing Identity Politics

“The harassment and smear campaign I have had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life,” star New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz whined. Yet, observes Glenn Greenwald at his Substack blog, she failed to mention “the lives she has harmed or otherwise deleteriously ­affected with her massive journalistic platform.” The tech reporter “has been repeatedly caught fabricating claims about influential people” and “attempting to ruin the reputations and lives of decidedly non-famous people.” Noting that she “should stop fabricating accusations” and “monitoring the private acts of non-public people” isn’t harassment, yet such absurd claims are now “commonplace” among the rich and powerful. It’s “ideological exploitation of identity politics to shield” the guardians of “the neoliberal order.”

From the right: Dems’ Bid To Coerce Voters

By winning control of the House, Senate and White House, “Democrats created an opportunity to make it easier for them to win in the future and harder for anyone to criticize them,” lament the Washington Examiner’s editors. That’s what HR 1 — their “For the People Act” — would do: It would “override state election laws” and “nationalize the administration of elections”; require groups to disclose campaign expenditures of $10,000, curbing criticism of politicians; “normalize ballot-harvesting,” thus opening the door to “coercion” of voters; and force taxpayers to fund politicians’ campaigns. It seems Democrats believe “more in coercion than in freedom and debate.”

Libertarian: Cali Recall No Threat to Democracy

A petition to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom has reportedly “surpassed the 1.5 million signatures needed for a special election,” notes Reason’s Scott Shackford. That has prompted pushback from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who claims the campaign is an extremist Republican attempt to “undermine democracy” and punish Newsom for “the crime of telling people to wear masks.” Huh? Writes Shackford: “Far from being a threat to democracy, the recall is a way for citizens to respond when an elected official is not doing what they were sent to office to do.” And “in a state where the number of registered Democrats is now nearly twice the number of Republicans, a potentially successful recall petition should be seen as a great big red flag that Newsom’s decisions this past year do not match the citizens’ needs.”

Ex-cheerleader: Don’t Punt Football ‘First Ladies’

The Washington Football Team faces accusations of “harassment,” but that’s no reason to scrap its cheerleading squad, argues former Redskins cheerleader Jillian Anderson at The Federalist. Cheerleaders “are a staple in the communities they represent” and athletes in their own right who “deserve the dream to go pro without being robbed by organizations” that can’t discipline themselves or “control their public image.” Instead of taking jobs from “the 60-plus-year legacy cheerleading squad known as the First Ladies of Football,” the team and owner Dan Snyder “need to be held accountable for their actions and right the wrongs.” For them to hire “more men to help public sexual-harassment issues seems like a very funny Band-Aid” for the scandal, but it’s “ultimately more about money and public perception than solving the franchise’s actual problems.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board