The
nurses
say
they
are
“earning
peanuts”
while
the
cost
of
living
continues
to
rise.
They
are
pushing
for
a
transport
allowance,
warning
that
getting
to
work
has
become
a
daily
struggle,
and
have
rejected
Public
Service
Commission
(PSC)
buses,
saying
they
do
not
align
with
their
shift
patterns.
They
are
also
calling
for
free
medical
care
at
public
hospitals,
arguing
they
can
no
longer
afford
treatment
themselves,
as
well
as
an
urgent
review
of
housing
allowances
amid
rising
rental
costs.
Even
uniforms
have
become
a
point
of
concern,
with
nurses
saying
worn
and
scruffy
attire
reflects
a
system
under
strain
rather
than
a
lack
of
professionalism.
The
strike
comes
just
days
after
nurses
at
Sally
Mugabe
Central
Hospital,
formerly
Harare
Hospital,
briefly
downed
tools
on
Friday
over
low
pay,
saying
their
salaries
no
longer
cover
basic
living
costs
following
a
sharp
rise
in
fuel
prices.
At
the
time,
nurses
held
placards
and
sang
outside
the
hospital
as
they
called
for
salary
adjustments
in
line
with
the
rising
cost
of
living.
Nurses
in
Zimbabwe
currently
earn
around
US$450
a
month,
paid
in
a
mix
of
United
States
dollars
and
ZiG.
HARARE
–
Schools
have
been
ordered
to
enforce
a
cap
on
the
number
of
subjects
candidates
can
sit
at
both
Ordinary
and
Advanced
Level
to
ease
pressure
on
learners,
the
ministry
of
primary
and
secondary
education
said
on
Sunday.
O’
Level
candidates
will
now
be
limited
to
a
maximum
of
nine
subjects,
while
A’
Level
candidates
will
be
restricted
to
three.
The
deadline
for
the
registration
of
candidates
for
the
ZIMSEC
final
examinations
in
November
is
March
27.
The
ministry
has
directed
schools
that
registered
candidates
for
subjects
above
the
new
limits
to
refund
the
affected
pupils.
Tawungana
Ndoro,
the
ministry’s
director
of
communications
and
advocacy,
said:
“The
policy
on
capping
the
number
of
subjects
that
one
can
register
for
at
both
O’
and
A’
Level
is
now
in
force.”
Authorities
say
they
have
seen
a
surge
in
students
registering
for
an
unusually
high
number
of
subjects,
which
they
insist
serves
no
purpose,
as
university
entry
requirements
are
typically
based
on
passes
in
three
A’
Level
subjects.
In
November
last
year,
a
student
from
Pamushana
High
School
in
Masvingo
sat
for
12
A’
Level
subjects
and
scored
56
points.
It
later
emerged
that
the
school
had
to
seek
special
permission
from
ZIMSEC
for
him
to
sit
some
of
the
exams
after
other
students
had
taken
the
tests
due
to
scheduling
clashes.
Ndoro
said
the
new
measures
will
“ensure
depth
of
learning,
quality
of
instruction
and
the
integrity
of
learner
outcomes,”
following
some
suggestions
that
examinations
had
become
too
easy.
Some
parents,
however,
believe
allowing
their
children
to
take
more
than
the
mandatory
subjects
gives
them
an
advantage
when
applying
for
university
places.
The
presidency
has
also
weighed
in
on
the
debate,
with
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
spokesman
George
Charamba
labelling
the
practice
of
taking
on
extra
subjects
as
“illusory
grandeur.”
“Anything
beyond
the
15
points
in
three
subjects
at
A’
Level
is
superfluous
—
a
vanity
flight,”
Charamba
said.
“No
attention
is
given
to
the
needless
pressure
and
stress
on
the
misguided
child,
the
financial
strain
on
parents,
or
the
profligate
misuse
of
time
—
all
without
a
clear
career
path.”
MUTARE
–
Firebrand
lawyer
and
opposition
figure
Tendai
Biti
and
fellow
activist
Morgan
Ncube
were
granted
US$500
bail
each
by
a
court
in
Mutare
on
Monday,
but
were
barred
from
holding
public
meetings
without
police
clearance.
Biti,
59,
a
former
finance
minister
and
convener
of
the
Constitution
Defenders
Forum
(CDF),
and
Ncube,
45,
were
arrested
last
Saturday
while
organising
a
meeting
to
discuss
the
controversial
Constitutional
Amendment
Bill
No.
3.
They
are
charged
with
violating
the
Maintenance
of
Peace
and
Order
Act
for
allegedly
convening
a
public
gathering
without
notifying
authorities.
Magistrate
Honest
Musiyiwa,
as
part
of
the
bail
conditions,
ordered
the
two
men
to
continue
residing
at
their
given
addresses,
to
report
fortnightly
at
ZRP
Borrowdale
(Biti)
and
Beitbridge
(Ncube)
and
not
to
convene
a
gathering
without
seeking
authority
from
the
police.
Prosecutors
opposed
bail,
arguing
the
duo
were
flight
risks
and
could
interfere
with
investigations.
Reacting
to
the
ruling,
the
CDF
welcomed
the
granting
of
bail
but
condemned
the
conditions
as
excessive
and
unconstitutional.
“These
conditions
are
excessive,
lack
justification
in
the
interest
of
justice,
and
undermine
rights
protected
under
Section
67
of
the
constitution,”
the
organisation
said
in
a
statement.
The
CDF
argued
that
the
restrictions
infringe
on
fundamental
freedoms,
including
assembly
and
association,
expression,
movement
and
administrative
justice.
“Bail
conditions
must
be
lawful,
reasonable
and
proportionate.
Bail
is
intended
to
secure
attendance
before
the
court,
not
to
impose
sweeping
limitations
on
fundamental
rights,”
the
group
said.
It
also
said
the
prohibition
on
convening
meetings
effectively
curtails
constitutionally
protected
political
activity,
adding
that
magistrates
must
act
within
the
confines
of
the
constitution.
The
CDF
said
it
would
challenge
the
conditions
through
legal
channels.
The
case
comes
as
tensions
soar
over
the
proposed
reforms
backed
by
the
government,
which
could
extend
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
rule
beyond
2028
and
shift
presidential
elections
to
parliament.
Critics
say
the
changes
entrench
power
and
have
triggered
a
crackdown,
with
activists
reporting
abductions,
intimidation
and
assaults
in
recent
weeks.
HARARE
–
Zimbabwe’s
top
police
operations
chief
has
had
enough,
and
he
wants
every
officer’s
uniform
selfie
off
social
media.
Now.
Deputy
Commissioner
General
Learn
Ncube
fired
off
an
urgent
nationwide
radio
signal
on
Monday
ordering
all
officers
to
immediately
pull
any
social
media
posts
in
which
they
appear
dressed
in
police
uniform
–
or
face
disciplinary
action.
“This
uncouth
behaviour
is
seriously
damaging
the
image
of
the
organisation,”
Ncube
declared
in
the
signal,
designated
RDO
BD14/26
and
addressed
to
police
stations
across
the
country.
The
directive
names
Facebook,
TikTok
and
WhatsApp
as
the
platforms
where
officers
have
been
caught
posting
in
uniform
without
permission,
a
practice
Ncube
says
has
gone
far
enough.
“Displaying
oneself
in
police
uniform
on
social
media
platforms
without
authorisation
is
totally
unacceptable
and
breaches
the
police
standing
rules
and
regulations,”
he
wrote.
“Such
actions
compromise
the
integrity
of
the
organisation
and
undermine
public
trust.”
Ncube,
who
oversees
operations
at
police
headquarters,
told
provincial
commanders
to
brief
their
troops
without
delay
and
make
sure
the
message
filtered
down
to
every
last
officer
in
the
service.
The
order
leaves
no
room
for
delay.
Officers
with
existing
posts
are
told
to
remove
them
immediately,
not
eventually,
not
soon.
The
signal
warns
that
headquarters
“observed
with
disgruntlement”
the
conduct
that
has
been
playing
out
online,
signalling
the
brass
had
been
watching
for
some
time
before
deciding
to
act.
“As
a
matter
of
urgency,
all
those
with
posts
on
social
media
platforms
whilst
dressed
in
police
uniform
should
immediately
remove
such
posts,”
it
states
bluntly.
“Disciplinary
action
shall
be
taken
against
those
who
fail
to
comply
with
this
given
directive.”
The
crackdown
comes
as
rank-and-file
officers
have
increasingly
taken
to
posting
videos
and
photos
of
themselves
in
uniform
on
social
media
–
dancing,
commenting
on
public
affairs,
or
simply
showing
off
the
badge
–
sometimes
to
wide
audiences
and
not
always
to
the
command’s
liking.
Ncube’s
signal
closes
with
a
reminder,
almost
a
warning,
that
none
of
this
should
have
needed
saying
in
the
first
place.
“This
signal
serves
as
a
reminder
of
the
importance
of
maintaining
professional
standards
and
adhering
to
the
police
code
of
conduct,”
it
reads.
If
you
spent
the
tail
end
of
last
week
watching
the
NCAA
Tournament,
you
may
have
encountered
High
Point
University,
the
12-seed
that
knocked
off
Wisconsin
83-82
in
one
of
the
Big
Ten’s
few
blemishes
so
far.
And
if
you
watched
the
ensuing
media
coverage,
you
may
have
learned
that
High
Point
is,
as
Defector
put
it,
“a
deeply
weird
school.”
High
Point’s
Kenneth
F.
Kahn
School
of
Law
earned
the
designation
from
ABA’s
Council
of
the
Section
of
Legal
Education
and
Admissions
to
the
Bar
at
the
most
recent
meeting.
Provisional
approval
means
the
school’s
graduates
—
High
Point
began
enrolling
law
students
in
2024
—
can
sit
for
the
bar
exam
and
are
entitled
to
the
same
recognition
as
graduates
of
fully
approved
schools.
The
school
will
need
to
demonstrate
full
compliance
within
five
years
to
earn
permanent
accreditation.
It’s
just
another
piece
of
the
professional
puzzle
for
the
private
North
Carolina
school,
which
brands
itself
as
“The
Premier
Life
Skills
University.”
And
by
“life
skills,”
the
school
means
training
graduates
to
be
the
most
obnoxious
spam
poster
on
LinkedIn:
Because
job
interviews
and
client
deals
often
happen
over
meals,
administrators
want
students
to
rehearse
social
etiquette.
So
they
built
a
steakhouse,
Mediterranean
restaurant
and
Teppanyaki
grill,
where
students
can
eat
weekly
as
part
of
their
meal
plan.
Reservations
are
required;
phones
banished.
Also
on
campus
is
an
airplane-cabin
interior,
because
sitting
next
to
an
executive
on
a
plane
could
offer
a
golden
opportunity—one
young
people
should
rehearse
for.
The
campus
concierge
offers
students
airport
shuttle
service
for
free
if
they
wear
a
High
Point
University
shirt;
otherwise
it
costs
$95—a
lesson
in
brand
awareness.
Everything
about
that
is
insufferable.
But
at
least
a
school
has
come
along
to
protect
a
future
JD
Vance
from
the
supposed
trauma
he
suffered
when
he
couldn’t
figure
out
a
salad
fork.
As
the
WSJ
article
notes,
“some
online
critics
deem
High
Point
a
‘glorified
country
club,’
a
characterization
students
and
administrators
dispute.”
Presumably
the
school
takes
offense
that
“glorified”
seems
to
mock
the
genuine
country
club
they’ve
built.
The
school
charges
wealthy
students
almost
$40,000
for
private
housing
and
has
six
heated
pools
on
campus.
High
Point
charges
high
tuition
to
teach
rich
kids
—
“Half
of
Wall
Street
sends
their
kids
to
this
school,”
brags
the
university
president
—
to
Patrick
Bateman
their
way
to
the
top
by
rehearsing
power
lunches
and
becoming
some
air
travel
weary
executive’s
nightmare
single-serving
friend.
As
for
the
law
school,
its
140
or
so
students
—
having
only
started
accepting
students
for
the
Fall
of
2024,
there
are
only
1Ls
and
2Ls
so
far
—
enjoy
a
shiny
new
77,000-square-foot
building
featuring
a
120-seat
courtroom,
two
smaller
courtrooms,
and
a
13,000-square-foot
law
library.
Presumably
they
also
have
one
of
those
F1
simulators,
except
for
chasing
down
ambulances.
In
Martin’s
defense,
Trump
has
also
claimed
that
a
former
president
told
him
that
he
wished
he’d
gone
to
war
with
Iran
—
a
conversation
all
living
presidents
have
denied
having
—
so
it’s
possible
the
convicted
felon
did
not
properly
convey
Martin’s
advice.
That
said,
the
January
6
Committee’s
final
report
indicates
Martin
spoke
with
Trump
about
it
over
a
seven-minute
phone
call.
Maybe
he
should’ve
spoken
with
him
on
an
airplane.
What
the
President
said
…
of
course,
is
petty,
shameful,
despicable
and
undignified.
Sadly,
that
is
the
president
we
have,
but
fortunately,
in
American
history,
we’ve
had
people
like
Bob
Mueller,
and
hopefully
our
better
angels
like
Bob
can
get
us
beyond
the
fascism
that
we’re
experiencing
at
this
moment.
Rather
than
focusing
on
the
despicable
response
of
a
demented
president,
we
should
really
focus
on
the
hero
that
we
lost
today,
and
ideally
gain
some
inspiration
and
some
strength
that
we
can
bring
out
on
No
Kings
Day
when
we
stand
up
again
for
our
country.
— Ty
Cobb,
former
Hogan
&
Lovells
partner
turned White
House special
counsel
(in
the
Trump
I
regime),
in
comments
given
during
an
appearance
on
MS
Now,
concerning
President
Donald
Trump’s
words
in
response
to
the
death
of
special
counsel
Robert
Mueller,
who
oversaw
the
investigation
into
Russian
interference
in
2016’s
presidential
election.
Trump
said
of
Mueller’s
passing,
“Good,
I’m
glad
he’s
dead.
He
can
no
longer
hurt
innocent
people!”
Cobb
went
on
to
say,
“[T]hat’s
the
type
of
person
that
President
Trump
is.
He’s
a
demented
narcissist,
[he]
seriously
hates
anybody
who
stands
in
opposition
to
him.”
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to email her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
(Photo
by
Nathan
Laine/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images)
Elon
Musk,
perpetual
proof
that
money
can’t
unlame
you,
took
a
loss
in
court
last
week.
Nowadays,
it
is
easy
to
say
that
his
purchase
of
the
company
formerly
(and
currently)
known
as
Twitter
at
an
above-market
cost
so
he
could
make
a
420
joke
in
the
hopes
that
his
then
girlfriend
would
find
it
funny
was
dumb.
It
was
easy
to
say
so
back
then
too,
but
I
digress.
A
lawsuit
alleging
that
Musk
misled
Twitter
investors
resolved
after
years
of
litigation.
And
while
the
jury
did
find
that
he
was
not
guilty
of
a
greater
fraud
scheme,
the
outcome
was
not
entirely
in
his
favor.
CNBC
has
coverage:
A
jury
in
California
found
that
Elon
Musk
defrauded
Twitter
shareholders
during
the
runup
to
his
$44
billion
acquisition
of
the
social
media
company,
according
to
a
verdict
issued
on
Friday.
Total
damages
could
reach
up
to
$2.6
billion,
attorneys
for
the
plaintiffs
said.
The
class
action
lawsuit,
Pampena
v.
Musk,
was
originally
filed
in
October
2022,
after
Musk
completed
his
purchase
of
Twitter
for
$54.20
per
share. … “This
is
a
great
example
of
what
you
cannot
do
to
the
average
investor
—
people
that
have
401ks,
kids,
pension
funds,
teachers,
firemen,
nurses,”
Joseph
Cotchett,
an
attorney
for
the
Twitter
investors,
told
CNBC
at
the
San
Francisco
courthouse.
Considering
he
was
clocked
at
over
~$800B
last
month,
they
could
round
up
the
damages
to
a
nice
$3B
(perhaps
to
make
his
ex
laugh)
and
it
would
still
be
a
rounding
error
compared
to
his
hoarded
wealth.
To
be
frank,
daily
fluctuations
in
the
market
will
probably
have
a
bigger
outcome
than
this
decision
—
Bloomberg’s
current
valuation
of
him
at
$641B
reads
less
like
“This
guy
lost
~$160B
in
a
month!”
and
more
like
“Hey,
we
all
have
rough
Mondays.”
And
before
any
poindexters
respond,
“Well
actually
most
of
the
wealth
is
locked
in
stock
so
it
isn’t
liquid,”
he
could
just
sell
some
of
his
shares.
Plenty
of
people
have
had
to
do
things
like
sell
their
homes
to
pay
off
legal
fees;
there’s
no
use
in
pretending
that
liquefying
your
assets
becomes
some
huge
burden
once
you
become
rich.
Further,
it
would
make
for
a
nice
full
circle
moment
given
that
he
sold
some
of
his
Tesla
shares
as
part
of
the
plan
to
buy
Twitter
back
in
2022.
Represented
by
Quinn
Emanuel,
Musk
intends
to
appeal
the
verdict.
And
good
on
them.
If
there’s
a
guy
you
should
be
cranking
billable
hours
out
of,
it’s
this
guy.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
The
legal
system
is
being
tested
in
ways
that extend
beyond
new
tools
or
regulations.
Fairness,
access,
and
accountability
have become everyday
concerns,
not
academic
ones.
The
survey
results
behind
8am’s
2026
Legal Industry
Report
reflect
this
reality.
Legal
professionals
are
adapting
to
new
ways
of working
while
trying
to
preserve
the
principles that
define
the
profession.
There
is
optimism
about
efficiency
and innovation,
but
also
concern
about
cost,
equity,
and
public
trust.
The
legal
professionals
surveyed
weighed
in
on
these
issues
and
more,
offering
insights
that
provide
a
roadmap
for
navigating
this
pivotal
moment in
time.
Download
the
report
to
explore
topics
that
include:
Generative
AI:
Adoption
and
perspectives
Access
to
justice:
Challenges
and
potential
solutions
I
remain
deeply
skeptical
of
the
prospect
that
AI
will
“replace”
lawyers.
The
technology
keeps
making
impressive
inroads
into
legal
work,
but
every
advancement
promises
to
take
tasks
off
an
individual
lawyer’s
plate,
but
not
to
remove
the
lawyer
from
the
process.
It
is,
as
the
AI
gurus
always
say,
just
giving
lawyers
more
time
to
do
the
real
lawyering.
Lawyers
will
certainly
lose
their
jobs
when
a
firm
can
produce
the
same
output
in
half
the
time,
but
that’s
not
really
the
same
as
being
“replaced.”
But
the
problem
with
a
model
that
places
more
importance
of
seasoned
professional
judgment,
is
making
sure
law
firms
have
a
pipeline
of
seasoned
professionals.
Because
despite
Biglaw
partners
thinking
they’ll
live
forever
and
rushing
to
kick
down
the
ladder
to
strand
their
younger
colleagues
in
dead
end
income
partner
roles
outside
the
equity
bounty,
eventually
new
blood
has
to
take
over.
What
will
this
new
blood
look
like
in
an
AI-driven
world?
Over
the
course
of
Legalweek,
this
topic
kept
coming
up.
No
one
seemed
to
have
an
answer.
AI
creates
two
big
problems
for
law
firms,
making
the
development
funnel
both
smaller
and
less
robust.
If
fewer
lawyers
are
required
to
do
the
work,
the
firm
hires
fewer
lawyers.
For
an
industry
based
on
a
glorified
pyramid
scheme,
fewer
junior
lawyers
means
fewer
future
senior
lawyers.
In
the
short-term,
firms
will
bridge
this
gap
with
lateral
hiring,
but
when
everyone
in
the
market
cuts
back,
the
talent
pool
becomes
a
piranha
frenzy.
And
some
firms
are
going
to
show
up
after
the
carcass
is
fully
picked
over.
Some
folks
brush
this
off
by
reminding
us
that
everyone
doesn’t
have
to
go
to
Biglaw
—
which
is
the
“just
cut
back
on
the
avocado
toast
and
you
can
own
a
home”
of
legal.
Of
course,
not
everyone
has
to
go
into
Biglaw,
but
the
lawyer-industrial
complex
requires
a
LOT
of
students
go
into
Biglaw.
Tuitions
must
be
paid.
And
those
public
service
jobs
are
subsidized
by
the
people
willing
to
pay
sticker
prices.
If
the
most
expensive
schools
can’t
necessarily
place
their
graduates
in
top
salary
jobs,
there
will
be
fewer
top-tier
applicants,
which
just
exacerbates
the
problem.
Because
the
law
schools
aren’t
likely
to
shrink…
they’ll
make
their
nut
by
bringing
in
more
students
who
would
otherwise
go
to
less
expensive
schools.
Then
they’ll
come
out
deep
in
debt
with
fewer
jobs
available
to
cover
that
cost.
As
hiring
and
retention
becomes
more
intense,
firms
have
to
grapple
with
teaching
judgment
to
juniors
who
outsource
most
of
their
thought
processes
to
AI.
One
Legalweek
attendee
recounted
the
second-hand
story
of
a
top
litigator
worried
that
she’s
increasingly
seeing
AI-produced
drafts
and
that
her
markups
are
just
being
dropped
back
into
AI
to
make
all
the
changes.
Has
the
junior
actually
learned
anything?
And,
in
some
ways,
this
isn’t
new.
In
past
decades,
a
junior
could
hand
the
markup
to
an
assistant
or
word
processing
department
to
integrate.
But
word
processing
couldn’t
deal
with
that
margin
note
asking
for
more
research
or
giving
general
direction
like,
“rewrite
in
light
of
page
4
comments.”
The
AI
tool
will
actually
take
a
stab
at
that.
And
it’s
not
just
the
act
of
entering
edits
because
the
process
itself
taught
a
lesson.
“We
had
the
one
or
two
partners
that
we
worked
with
a
lot,
and
we
put
together
memos,
and
they
threw
it
back
at
us,
with
a
bunch
of
red,
and
said,
‘what
the
hell
is
this?’”
Oyango
Snell,
Executive
Director
of
CLOC
told
me.
“It
made
us
better
attorneys.
And
it
made
us
better
in
communications.
It
made
us
better
at
how
we
manage
business
affairs
with
clients,
because
we
understood
the
pressures
that
those
partners
were
on
when
they
would
have
to
go
and
interact
with
that
client.”
The
iterative
nature
of
editing
—
turning
that
document
10
times
and
seeing
the
partner
pick
up
on
problems
left
completely
untouched
three
turns
ago
—
taught
lessons
about
prioritization
and
how
an
argument
comes
together
holistically.
When
a
rams
through
all
those
steps
and
puts
out
something
vaguely
finalized
in
one
go…
how
keenly
will
senior
lawyers
engage
in
the
iterative
process?
A
lot
of
thinking
took
place
across
those
turns
—
and
the
interminable
waits
in
between
—
that
doesn’t
necessarily
happen
when
AI
skips
over
those
steps.
I
sometimes
talk
about
AI
as
a
“smart,
yet
clueless
associate”
and
while
that’s
usually
a
warning
not
to
trust
its
research,
it
also
raises
the
prospect
that
partners
could
bypass
the
associates
altogether.
If
the
aforementioned
litigator
really
believes
the
juniors
aren’t
learning
from
the
experience
and
AI
makes
the
changes
faster…
well,
the
partners
have
equal
access
to
ping
the
AI
to
enter
their
changes.
New
research
suggests
Gen
Z
is
dumber
than
the
prior
generation.
They
shouldn’t
shoulder
the
blame
for
this.
There’s
a
lot
going
on
there
—
including
a
pandemic
that
kept
a
bunch
of
them
out
of
class
during
formative
years
—
but
one
area
I’ve
anecdotally
noticed
is
that
these
students
don’t
take
notes.
The
combination
of
technology
and
busybody
helicopter
parenting
gave
rise
to
a
generation
taught
by
Powerpoint
decks
that
schools
could
post
to
keep
parents
unnecessarily
in
the
loop
about
multiplication
tables.
As
a
consequence,
students
just
ask
for
access
to
the
slides
rather
than
write
down
the
information
themselves.
Writing
things
down
improves
memory
and
cognition,
and
this
generation
hasn’t
been
taught
to
do
it.
Lately,
I’ve
started
to
worry
that
AI
in
legal
could
take
on
a
role
similar
to
those
slide
decks.
The
first
generation
—
who
already
have
some
skills
under
their
belts
—
enjoy
the
new
tech
as
perk,
blissfully
unaware
that
the
next
cohort
will
suffer
for
it.
There’s
a
rosy
AI-enhanced
future
for
lawyers,
where
seasoned
professionals
manage
more
matters
than
ever
before
with
AI
doing
all
the
tedious
lifting
while
letting
“lawyers
be
lawyers.”
But
that
future
rests
on
the
idea
that
someone
at
the
top
of
the
pyramid
has
the
training
and
judgment
to
shepherd
the
agent
swarm.
Those
people
are
there
right
now,
but
what
happens
in
10-20
years?
Will
there
be
enough
lawyers
with
enough
know-how
to
get
the
job
done?
That’s
the
question
no
one
seems
ready
to
answer.
Or
even
seriously
grapple
with.
You
don’t
want
to
get
on
Pete
Hegseth’s
bad
side
…
literally.
That
maniac
just
booted
photographers
from
Pentagon
press
briefings
for
failing
to
capture
his
manly
jaw
from
a
sufficiently
flattering
angle.
But
the
secretary
will
be
seeing
a
bunch
of
his
old
enemies
again
soon,
thanks
to
a
ruling
on
Friday
from
Judge
Paul
Friedman
in
DC.
The
court
struck
down
the
Pentagon’s
policy
excluding
reporters
who
publish
“unauthorized”
news
and
ordered
the
Defense
Department
to
restore
passes
for
seven
New
York
Times
reporters
who
walked
out
in
October
rather
than
agree
to
it.
And,
as
usual,
the
Trump
administration’s
constant
shitposting
provided
the
evidence
of
animus
that
sank
them
in
court.
Snowflake
melts
As
a
weekend
host
on
Fox,
Pete
Hegseth
spent
years
slinging
mud
at
Democrats.
But
during
his
confirmation,
he
found
that
being
on
the
receiving
end
was
a
lot
less
fun.
He
made
it
through,
despite
extensive
coverage
of
his
drinking,
alleged
sexual
assault,
and
professional
failures,
and
even
survived
the
publication
of
his
classified
Signal
messages
in
a
group
chat
that
included
the
editor
of
The
Atlantic.
But
with
so
many
blabbermouths
writing
about
upheaval
in
DOD
leadership,
the
Pentagon
decided
it
was
time
to
batten
down
the
hatches.
In
February
2025,
they
evicted
the
New
York
Times,
NBC,
Politico,
and
NPR
from
their
dedicated
Pentagon
workspaces.
Then
in
September,
DOD
Spokesman
Sean
Parnell
rolled
out
a
new
policy
for
the
Pentagon
press
corps.
For
decades,
journalists
with
Pentagon
Facilities
Alternate
Credentials
(PFACs)
got
access
to
press
briefings
and
non-classified
areas,
where
they
could
chat
with
officials
and
develop
the
connections
and
background
knowledge
essential
to
keep
the
public
informed.
Under
the
new
rules,
journalists
would
have
to
agree
not
to
publish
or
solicit
unauthorized
information,
essentially
promising
to
be
obedient
stenographers
in
exchange
for
access.
And
the
DOD
could
revoke
credentials
for
journalists
deemed
a
“security
or
safety
risk,”
based
on
a
nebulous
set
of
criteria
that
vested
more
or
less
complete
discretion
in
the
government.
On
October
15,
virtually
every
reporter
walked
out
rather
than
surrender
their
journalistic
ethics,
including
those
from
Hegseth’s
old
network
Fox,
as
well
as
its
hillbilly
cousin
Newsmax.
Pentagon
reporters
could
be
seen
leaving
the
sprawling
U.S.
military
headquarters
with
boxes
after
at
least
30
news
organizations
declined
to
sign
a
new
Pentagon
access
policy
for
journalists,
warning
of
the
potential
for
less
coverage
of
the
world’s
most
powerful
military.
The
following
week,
Parnell
triumphantly
announced
“the
next
generation
of
the
Pentagon
press
corps,”
outlets
that
“circumvent
the
lies
of
the
mainstream
media
and
get
real
news
to
the
American
people,”
unlike
those
“activists
who
masquerade
as
journalists.”
Today,
the
Department
of
War
is
announcing
the
next
generation
of
the
Pentagon
press
corps.
We
are
excited
to
announce
over
60
journalists,
representing
a
broad
spectrum
of
new
media
outlets
and
independent
journalists,
have
signed
the
Pentagon’s
media
access
policy
and
will
be…
At
a
December
2
briefing,
Pentagon
Press
Secretary
Kingsley
Wilson
crowed
that
“the
legacy
media
chose
to
self-deport.”
“American
people
don’t
trust
these
propagandists
because
they
stopped
telling
the
truth,”
she
smirked.
The
“next
generation”
includes
such
luminaries
as
Laura
Loomer,
a
virulent
racist
who
rose
to
fame
by
handcuffing
herself
to
the
doors
of
the
headquarters
at
Twitter
and
is
currently
suing
comedian
Bill
Maher
for
implying
that
she
slept
with
Trump,
making
her
too
toxic
for
a
government
job.
She’s
joined
by
Mike
Lindell,
the
pillow-puffing
election
fraud
aficionado
currently
running
for
governor
in
Minnesota,
as
well
as
James
O’Keefe,
founder
of
Project
Veritas,
and
beanie-ed
podcaster
Tim
Pool.
“Does
the
Department
of
War
plan
on
pursuing
any
legal
action
against
the
Washington
Post?”
wondered
one
such
intrepid
journalist
at
the
initial
presser.
“And
what
consequences
will
there
be
for
lying
to
the
American
people?”
“The
Washington
Post,
I
think,
readership
should
think
twice
before
reading
that
outlet
again,”
Wilson
agreed.
“It
is
disgraceful
that
they
call
themselves
journalists
and
we
told
them
as
such,
right?”
Big
mouth
meets
bigger
Constitution
Two
days
later,
the
New
York
Times
sued,
citing
violations
of
the
First
and
Fifth
Amendments.
“The
Policy
fails
to
provide
fair
notice
to
Plaintiffs
and
other
journalists
and
news
organizations
of
what,
in
the
Department’s
‘unbridled
discretion,’
will
(or
will
not)
be
deemed
improper
newsgathering
or
reporting
that
warrants
the
immediate
suspension
and
eventual
revocation
of
a
PFAC,”
they
argued.
“And
its
incurably
vague
language
and
lack
of
standards
invite
arbitrary
as
well
as
content-
and
viewpoint-based
determinations
as
to
which
reporters
and
news
organizations
will
be
granted
or
denied
access
to
the
Pentagon
and
for
what
reasons.”
Parnell
and
Wilson’s
sneering
featured
prominently
as
evidence
of
viewpoint
retaliation.
And
the
patrons
of
the
Star
Wars
bar
prove
that
the
“discretionary”
policy
is
“based
on
favored
and
disfavored
content
and
speakers.”
Exhibit
A:
Laura
Loomer.
The
day
her
credential
came
through,
she
posted
that
she’d
“developed
a
Rolodex
of
sources”
and
invited
followers
to
submit
tips
to
“the
most
influential
Tip
Line
in
all
of
DC.”
Asked
why
Loomer’s
tipline
was
acceptable
when
the
Washington
Post’s
was
not,
Wilson
replied
that
“Unlike
[the
Post’s]
solicitation,
which
explicitly
and
exclusively
targets
military
personnel
and
DoW
employees,
Laura
Loomer’s
X
post
regarding
tips
to
her
news
outlet
is
a
general
tip
line,
which
is
constitutionally
permissible.”
“If
Fake
News
reporters
actually
had
a
brain
and
could
read
our
policy
correctly,
then
maybe
one
day
they
will
be
as
effective
of
a
journalist
as
Ms.
Loomer
is,”
she
sniped.
The
complaint
noted
that
O’Keefe’s
entire
career
revolves
around
secretly
recording
officials,
and
in
2010
he
pled
guilty
to
unlawfully
entering
a
sitting
senator’s
office
disguised
as
a
repairman
with
the
aim
of
planting
a
bug.
For
his
part,
Tim
Pool
was
apparently
too
stupid
to
realize
he
was
being
paid
by
a
Russian
cutout
to
spout
Kremlin-friendly
propaganda.
But
they
were
apparently
fine
to
wander
the
halls
of
the
Pentagon
without
a
minder,
unlike
the
prior
crew,
who
were
deemed
to
be
a
“safety
and
security
risk.”
Because
none
of
the
factual
claims
was
seriously
contested,
the
parties
moved
directly
to
summary
judgment.
At
oral
argument
on
March
6,
the
government’s
own
lawyer
called
the
policy
“more
subjective,”
a
damning
admission
the
DOJ
tried
to
walk
back
a
week
later
in
a
Notice
of
Clarification.
The
standards
are,
too,
“guided
by
enumerated,
objective
factors,”
they
insisted,
it’s
only
the
imposition
of
judgment
which
is
subjective.
Also,
when
they
said
at
oral
argument
that
asking
a
question
was
“soliciting
a
criminal
act,”
what
they
meant
was
yes,
it
totally
is,
and
you
can
establish
mens
rea
“for
example
by
offering
anonymity
and
privacy
protection
to
the
source
in
exchange
for
the
information.”
(Any
questions
should
be
directed
to
the
“senior
pentagon
official”
who
speaks
to
every
reporter
in
DC
when
snark
from
a
27-year-old
internet
troll
won’t
cut
it.)
Of
course,
if
you
have
to
issue
multiple
codicils
to
your
policy,
you’re
probably
losing
on
the
issue
of
vagueness.
Or,
as
Judge
Friedman
put
it
“neither
counsel’s
statement
at
argument
nor
the
subsequent
‘clarification’
makes
much
of
a
difference
to
the
Court’s
analysis
because
neither
changes
what
the
Policy
actually
says.”
The
court
granted
summary
judgment
to
the
plaintiffs
on
their
constitutional
claims,
vacated
the
challenged
provisions
of
the
policy,
and
ordered
the
Pentagon
to
reinstate
the
Times
reporters’
credentials.
“To
state
the
obvious,
obtaining
and
attempting
to
obtain
information
is
what
journalists
do,”
the
court
wrote.
“Under
the
Policy’s
terms,
then,
essential
journalistic
practices
that
the
plaintiffs
and
others
engage
in
every
day—such
as
asking
questions
of
Department
employees—could
trigger
a
determination
by
the
Department
that
a
journalist
poses
a
security
or
safety
risk.”
As
for
viewpoint
discrimination,
Judge
Friedman
simply
included
a
linkroll
of
Parnell,
Wilson,
and
Hegseth
slagging
mainstream
reporters
as
“scum”
and
praising
media
who
are
“on
board
and
willing
to
serve.”
“That
is
viewpoint
discrimination,
full
stop,”
he
concluded.
Just
in
time
for
a
shooting
war
Calling
the
constitutional
violations
“extremely
serious,”
Judge
Friedman
declined
to
send
the
policy
back
to
DOD
to
take
another
swing
at
it.
Instead
he
vacated
the
offending
provisions
entirely,
ordering
the
Pentagon
to
reinstate
the
credentials
of
the
seven
Times
reporters
named
in
the
lawsuit.
Presumably
the
rest
of
the
“scum”
will
return,
too,
edging
out
the
Tim
Pools,
who
said
from
the
jump
that
they
weren’t
going
to
be
spending
much
time
there
because
their
job
is
hanging
out
and
shooting
the
shit,
not
journalism.
Timcast
Media
plans
to
have
our
White
House
correspondent
Elaad
Eliahu
attend
briefings
when
feasible
to
ask
policy-related
questions
and
gather
insights
on
Pentagon
operations.
We
aim
to
conduct
podcast
interviews
whenever
possible
but
do
not
intend
to
maintain
a
significant…
https://t.co/Szv0Y94vXl
