Stories of people like Jon Ponder are inspiring, but also illustrate how far we have to go in really offering convicted felons a fresh start. It's great that people like Mr. Ponder have a new life helping felons start over, but we need more success stories in ordinary businesses.
There is still so much prejudice against ex-convicts, and while that's understandable--recidivism is not zero--it's an enormous barrier that helps shove people back into a life of crime.
I don't want to take anything away from the people who do amazing work helping reintegrate felons. I just want to challenge us to do better, as a society, in finding ways to let people who did bad things put that past behind them after they've paid their debt to society.
This is America, the land of second chances ... and third chances ... and eighth chances. We are all the heirs of that grace. We can do better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This article is the worst argument I have read against driverless cars, and I've read a few. Unfortunately, I think this what's running through the minds of a lot of city planners: let's stall the development of an incredible lifesaving technology to bail out transit.
Why is this a bad argument? Well, for starters, Waymos mostly don't substitute for busses. They substitute for Ubers, taxis and personal driving. The capital requirements for these things are huge and will never be as cheap as cramming dozens of people into one vehicle.
Number two, as a political argument, this moral exhortation fails as a political strategy. No one is going to ride the bus because poor people can't afford Waymos. Nor will they ignore the tradeoffs between busses (waits outside, transfers, having to walk at both ends) because you tell them to.
My latest column is on the WBD merger drama, and why anyone wants to buy this company. My commenters are extremely mad that I focused on strategy and market economics rather than the specter of David Ellison controlling CNN. So here's why I didn't write about it.
I don't think the possibility of David Ellison owning CNN is even among the top 10 most interesting questions about this merger. It might not even break the top 20. It is a sideshow that has been blown up into the main story by a self-obsessed media.
Why doesn't it matter? Because I regret to inform you that it is no longer 1995. I am not a lithe and energetic 22 year old enjoying a rich and varied nightlife. And the mainstream media does not enjoy one tenth of the agenda-setting power it had back in those golden days.
AOC should talk to some women’s swimmers and find out just how intense the training they do is, and how long you have to train to get to a Division 1 final. Most of these swimmers have been doing it daily since they were eight years old.
More broadly, this is why Democrats keep losing on this issue: they make sick dunks for each other without thinking about how they come off to normies. People with kids in serious sports know, as AOC apparently doesn’t, just how much commitment it takes.
Until I went to Ivies, I didn’t understand a key component of why the other swimmers were angry: for most of these girls, this is the last time they get to swim competitively (the girls who might make it to the Olympics are at a handful of ultra-elite programs.
People were terrified to be publicly critical on this issue. It had the biggest gap I've ever seen between public and private opinion. That gap was maintained by the fear of a vicious backlash from activists for saying anything even mildly critical. Nor was that fear unfounded.
Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog, to name just two people, were effectively blacklisted from journalism and lost a lot of friends merely for noting that *detransition existed*. Saying that transfemale athletes shouldn't compete with women was many leagues beyond that, and by 2020, social justice activists had a lot more power.
When I was covering the Lia Thomas story, I had to do an interview on *how swim meets work* on background because the guy was terrified my name would end up in his story *explaining timing rules*. He said "If it was just me, I might risk it, but my kids are in swim clubs and I can't risk their lives getting upended."
As I wrote in 2022, about why affirmative action eventually became untenable: “One of my favorite statistics for shocking Washingtonians is to reveal that in 1960, more than five out of every six accounted for in the census were White”.
This shouldn’t be shocking but it is; people tend to unconsciously assume that there must have been a lot of non-white people around, because that’s what they’re used to. They understand the numbers used to be lower, but not how much lower.
I've talked about this with lawyers because I've been repeatedly surprised when folks I didn't know very well would openly say to me that they were looking to hire a woman of color for X position. I understood that this was illegal even before SFFA; they very clearly did not.
How did this happen? Well, because effectively in liberal institutions there were three safe harbors that made this behavior seem safe.
First, members of a majority group had a higher bar to sue than members of a minority. The Supreme Court now looks set to overturn this: washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/…