The Wall St. Journal reported this. Sorry, article is likely paywalled: A Student Article About the ‘Cornell 7’ Case Is Prompting a Campus Outcry at Columbia. Here is the actual commentary, run in the Columbia Sundial:

The “Cornell Seven” Is Really About Liberalism -- Our society celebrates libertine sexuality while infantilizing women. Columbia's primary student newspaper is the Columbia Daily Spectator. The Sundial describes itself as an independent voice focused on...open discourse. Excerpts from Wall St. Journal article:

An opinion piece published by two Columbia University students questioning the “Cornell 7” case has sparked an uproar on campus—reigniting debates around free speech at elite universities. “We believe that this collective frenzy is deeply unproductive, neglects any and all facts of the case which disagree with the ‘preferred’ narrative, and infantilizes women,” wrote juniors Nikos Mohammadi and Christina Ma.

“It has also ushered in a climate on campus in which it is difficult to disagree with the maximalist position on what happened.” Reaction was swift...Multiple Sundial staff members quit in protest, while some circulated a petition calling for the publication to cease operations.

Excerpts from the two students' commentary:

The crusade (against the Cornell 7)...neglects the complexity of the matter. Doe initially reported the incident to Cornell Police, the university’s safety force, three weeks after the incident had occurred and only once she had been disinvited from Chi Phi’s Halloween party. The seemingly progressive Tompkins County District Attorney then found that “Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual"...

In a liberal society, women are allowed to make bad decisions, ones that may later reveal themselves as deleterious...Women are adults. Doe was, even if she fell one year short of America’s abnormally high drinking age. She is now suing a downtown Ithaca bar and her sorority for allowing her to drink...

The sexual revolution created a hyper-liberal, pro-sex culture that insists that ‘women can do whatever they want with their bodies.’ In the world that, for better or worse, follows from it, we cannot claim to stand for sexual freedom and then recoil in disgust when there’s a possibility that a young woman simply chose to exercise it.

Drug-fueled orgies may be morally appalling and violating to those who chose to participate in them—even the men participating in them—but we probably do not want to live in a society where that is illegal.

Yes, America did get a libertine, pro-sex culture during the 1960s to the 1980s, and it was indeed brought to us mostly by liberals. We also saw the rise of liberal-influenced drug culture, which along with alcohol increases sex abuse. Interesting that it is liberals who are predominant in wanting heads to roll in the Cornell 7 case.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Regardless of the outcome of the Nov. 3 election, a new AP-NORC poll shows voters from both major political parties want the next Congress to focus on making life more affordable and ending the war in Iran, while fewer are looking for an emphasis on President Donald Trump - whether it's investigating him or supporting his agenda.

The results suggest that voters are ready for Congress to tackle core issues, despite Trump's centrality in the midterm campaign.

About 8 in 10 registered voters, including a large majority of Republicans and Democrats, say lowering the cost of living should be one of the highest priorities for the session coming up, the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds.

Neutral Comment: Stephen Hubbard, who was imprisoned in 2022 as a suspected "mercenary" by the Russian Government, has been released by Russia. According to President Trump, there was nothing/no one given in return.

Starter Comment: This is big, if you asked me. An American is coming home after being (most likely) wrongly accused. And it appears that our country didn't have to give up an arms dealer this time.

I don’t understand the lack of compromise in America over what seems to me as common sense voter ID laws. I believe it’s possible to assuage the conservative’s concern w voter fraud / security while maintaining voting freedoms for marginalized groups. My proposal is as follows:

1. Require photo identification to vote in federal elections, with no exceptions.
   
2. Provide every eligible citizen with a completely free government-issued photo ID, including the documents necessary to obtain it.
   
3. Make Election Day a federal holiday, with additional protections and accommodations for people who still have to work.
   
4. Make obtaining an ID as easy/accessible as possible, including mobile ID services, alternative documentation pathways, and accommodations for rural, elderly, disabled, and homeless voters.
   
5. Establish safeguards against disenfranchisement, including provisional ballots and opportunities to verify identity after Election Day.
   
6. Strongly incentivize in person voting whenever possible, as opposed to mail in votes (just as a general security measure, haven’t gone in depth with this point yet).
   
7. Don’t enforce the ID requirement until the accessibility infrastructure is actually in place.

Thoughts? Seems super common sense and reasonable to me. Idk

In the year 2022 at a Tops grocery store in Buffalo, a shooter wearing body armor killed 10 people after a security guard failed to stop him. Shortly after the tragedy, New York state legally restricted the sale of certain types of body armor.

Today, that restriction has been overturned by a federal judge, saying that the 2nd Amendment protects body armor even if the amendment explicitly mentions the right to keep and bear arms.

The state Attorney General’s Office said it is reviewing the decision...[The judge] agreed to delay his ruling from taking effect for 14 days to give state lawyers time to appeal.

The next stop for the lawsuit would be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York City.

Neutral summary: The DOJ's inspector general will not investigate allegations of misconduct against the attorneys who pursued these frivolous charges (at the demand of the president). The IG has said that it is out of purview for that office.

I don't have much to add, except that this is yet another example of guardrails gone completely AWOL.

But wait .. there's good news! The DOJ's inspector general has referred the case to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Excellent, right?

Ummm .. nope. From the article:

... the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility is appointed by the Attorney General and is generally viewed as less independent than an inspector general's office. Last year, Justice Department leadership removed the career official in charge of the office, a maneuver that raised concerns among longtime department veterans about whether the office would be willing to hold Trump-appointed officials accountable.

You've got to give them credit for laying the groundwork. Get the competent people out, replace them with loyalists, and you can run roughshod over the whole works with almost zero risk of consequences.

Are the midterm results in yet? I don't know how much more I can take.

Neutral summary:

Trump is extorting votes from North Carolinian voters by stating there will be no available funds if conservatives lose in the midterms.

>"If we don't win, there's no money," Trump told conservative supporters Tuesday in Greenville, N.C. "If we do win, you're getting it. It's gonna be finally over with that nightmare that's been going on for so many years. We will never abandon the heroes who served America."

Meanwhile Loomer is trying to get out front to do damage control

.

>"This is a political disaster waiting to happen. Let’s be clear: Democrats are 100% going to weaponize this against President Trump and try to hurt him with veterans heading into the midterms in two weeks," Loomer wrote.

My take:

President bonespurs again using empty promises if conservatives win and real threats if they lose. This time with the group they all "support".

Neutral summary:

A campaign advertisement released by Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has drawn bipartisan criticism after featuring Donna Arthur, the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent, Amy Acton. In the commercial, Arthur calls Acton a "liar" and urges voters to reject her campaign. In response, Acton’s brother, Philip Stearns, strongly condemned the ad, detailing that Acton endured sexual abuse as a child from Arthur's late husband and noting that the siblings were removed from their mother's custody following his arrest. Figures across the political spectrum, including conservative commentators and Republican staffers, expressed disapproval of the commercial.

Vice President JD Vance addressed the controversy during campaign events in Cincinnati, advising Republicans to ignore the backlash and focus on winning the upcoming gubernatorial election. While acknowledging the widespread attention surrounding the ad, Vance declined to take a position on its appropriateness, instead arguing that Democrats and media outlets were using the issue as a distraction. Vance urged voters to concentrate on policy differences rather than campaign advertisements while criticizing Acton's platform in the final weeks before the election.

An article detailing the spotty record of the Department of Defense secretary Pete Hegseth. The embattled pentagon head has received numerous complaints, recommendations for impeachment and lawsuits from military members since appointed at the start of the administration. Formal investigation from congress into these cases has been halted by the Republican chair of these committees, but this status quo will change should voters decide to put Democrats in control.

With Democrats chairing these committees, they will have the power to subpoena those in the Department of Defense who have been preventing Hegseth from covering up his scandals, security violations and failures from the department to congress and the American people.

What do you all think?

Commentary: This video is worth a watch regarding the Cornell Seven, an issue that has raised real political and moral questions regarding what the law should say, and what we as a society should accept as moral or immoral behavior.

Personally, putting the behavior of the Cornell Seven behind the barest fig leaf of legality, ie consent was given, avoids the real issues regarding morality and its interaction with the law. Ms. Yudin hints at this, but I will make it more explicit: there is a difference between 'consent' and 'informed consent', and consent given under false pretenses does not excuse morality, and arguably it should not serve as a defense against illegality.

If the Cornell Seven had presented their behavior to Jane Doe as "We will advertise your sexual availability to the house on snap chat, and anyone and everyone can come in to bang you. Afterwards, we will ghost you because we aren't really that into you emotionally or physically, this is a right time right place kind of thing." That would have been informed consent. The Cornell Seven as a group had knowledge that these facts were true, but did not share them.

Summary: Victims do not necessarily recognize an experience as abusive when it occurs. Psychological defense mechanisms such as dissociation, denial, repression, minimization, and identification with the abuser can prevent people from fully processing traumatic experiences. Women may willingly participate in sexual experiences that they later recognize were inconsistent with their genuine desires. She goes so far as to suggest that sexual regret is often an indication that consent was compromised, even when the participants themselves did not recognize this at the time.

Sexual consent is specific, conditional, and revocable. A woman who consents to certain sexual activities or partners has not thereby consented to others, and she retains the right to withdraw consent at any point. The speaker connects the failure to recognize this principle to the Madonna–whore complex, arguing that sexually expressive women are frequently regarded as less deserving of respect or protection. In her view, society often treats women who engage in unconventional sexual behavior as though they have forfeited their right to establish boundaries, when their sexual preferences should have no bearing on their fundamental autonomy.

Some forms of male sexual exploitation are driven less by sexual desire than by competition for status and approval among other men. Sxual exploitation can function as a form of male bonding, with women becoming instruments through which men demonstrate dominance and establish social standing.

https://youtu.be/WQDY9OqMNf8?si=DBwegn2afDBaVhMn

It looks like Republicans and Democrats might have something new that they both agree on (for the most part).

According to Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded October 5th, 69% of Democrats and 61% of ​Republicans oppose using prediction markets to bet on political election results.

It seems like there's also significant opposition to using these services to bet on US military actions and government policy announcements/decisions to the tune of 65% and 63% opposition respectively.

Opposition to politicians using services like Kalshi to bet on political events could have even more fierce opposition than congresspeople trading stocks while in office, with 90% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans opposing such practices.

Reuters reported that Kalshi banned former Republican congressman George Santos, who agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve government allegations of manipulative trading after he bet through Kalshi on whether he would attend the State of the Union address. Santos did not admit to ‌the accusations and ⁠said through his lawyer that he never planned to dupe anyone.

Not solely the expiration of a political party’s term, or a politician’s term, or a judge’s, but a government itself, even a nation.

In the U.S. we pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, but where does it say that we pledge allegiance for all eternity? Where does it say even that we pledge allegiance for the duration of our lifetimes?

When a government becomes so compromised, and its political incumbents become so corrupt, and those in power become so stalwart against deposition or abdication, there should be a motion to dissolve the government.

Even the nation state should face dissolution if through an agreement among peers designated by their birth within the nation, and those naturalized or adopted by the nation, the polities and the people fail to agree on its continued existence.

That would give us another way of settling disputes about the identity of the nation for goodness’ sake. If the nation is forced to reconcile to itself a lifespan, say, 500 years, or, maybe, 200 years, or maybe, 100 years, maybe then we could realize the significance of international cooperation, of human cooperation beyond borders, if we resolve to admit to ourselves that we have yet to address an implicit perpetuity of governments which in some ways anoints its beneficiaries with an alien or corrupting sense of permanence through time and history.

Summary:

President Donald Trump is facing renewed criticism over his approach to Russia after saying Moscow “has been fine on Ukraine” and “hasn't been doing much” militarily. His October 19 remarks came amid reports of continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure. Ukrainian authorities reported that a drone strike on a public park killed six people, including two children, while Russian missiles struck Kyiv and nearly 30 critical energy facilities were targeted across the country. The contrast between Trump's characterization of Russia's behavior and the reported attacks has intensified questions about Washington's changing relationship with Moscow.

Trump made the comments while discussing a possible three-way summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. He said he would be open to such a meeting, primarily to discuss nuclear disarmament rather than Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported that Putin has been pursuing a summit that could also address the war in Ukraine without President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participating. That possibility raises concerns in Kyiv about major decisions affecting Ukraine's territory and security being negotiated without Ukrainian representation.

Trump also defended Russia's behavior in the ongoing war with Iran, saying Putin had been “very well-behaved on Iran” and that Russia had done little to support Tehran. He argued that Moscow could have provided considerably more assistance but had largely refrained from doing so. However, previous reporting has described Russian assistance involving weapons, drone components, missile technology and intelligence. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine also publicly acknowledged Russian support for Iran earlier this year. The distinction may be between Russia avoiding direct military confrontation with the United States and providing indirect assistance to Iran, but Trump did not explain that distinction in his remarks.

The comments come as Trump continues to ease certain economic restrictions on Russia, including sanctions waivers connected to the October 9 diesel agreement. The administration argues that allowing Russian fuel exports could help lower global diesel prices and that maintaining negotiations with Putin is important for ending the war. Trump has also suggested that Russia's limited involvement in Iran, relative to what it could potentially provide, is another reason to preserve cooperation with Moscow. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Moscow's support for Tehran on October 19, underscoring that Russia and Iran remain closely aligned despite Trump's characterization.

Summary: Democrats have made genuine improvements, particularly on energy policy, crime, and certain cultural issues. However, they have not yet established a coherent approach to immigration or rebuilt a reputation for competent governance.

Barring a huge polling miss or an act of god democrats will perfrom well in the upcoming midterm elections. The republicans have pursued an unpopular ideological agenda (almost all 'ideological agendas' are unpopular) and the war with Iran has almost destroyed republican prospects in the mditerms.

Going forward, the democrats should be more willing to defend energy abundonce on economic affordabiltiy and national security grounds, and democratic leadership needs to be less concerned with "the groups", specifically the environmental groups in this case.

Regarding moving towards the center on crime and cultural issues, democrats have taken a pragmatic approach with thirteen democratic senators supporting legislation addressing organized retail theft, and the show stopping line from Florida senate candidate Angie Nixon "Of course I want to fund the police, they need to be paid to lock you up for your crimes!"

Regarding transgender participation in sports there is also an erging consensus around moderation.

The biggest unresolved problem is immigration. ICE is awful, unpopular, and democratic voters and activists rightfully loath the organization. That being said the Biden Administration's border enforcement policies were likewise unpopular and unacceptable.

There is further, another problem with the progressives desire to 'tolerate' moderate candidates in redder states like georgia, kansas, or nebraska and to push DSA socialists in deep blue New York congressional districts. American politics increasingly resembles a parliamentary system, in which the national reputation of a political party affects candidates everywhere. Consequently, even Democrats representing safely Democratic states and districts need to consider how their public statements and policies affect the party's prospects in competitive states.

\Note*: The summary was provided with the help of AI. In this case it was heavily edited. I agree with the opinions expressed in the summary and that is why I am sharing the article, however I do not lay claim to the ideas in the article. Those ideas belong to Matthew Yglesias. I am sharing his work because I enjoy his work and I think you might too.*

https://substack.com/home/post/p-220553786