WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Woman in Short Skirt Sparks Debate, and Arrest, in Saudi Arabia Video of the woman walking around a historic town went viral in the conservative kingdom By Margherita Stancati

Posted By on July 19th, 2017

Saudi Arabia’s police detained a woman for appearing in public wearing a short skirt and a cropped top, a violation of the country’s strict dress code, state media said on Tuesday.

A video of the woman walking around the historic town of Ushayqir, which first surfaced on Snapchat, went viral on Saudi social media over the weekend, sparking a fierce debate in the kingdom, with some speaking out in her defense and others calling for her swift punishment.

The woman, who hasn’t been officially named, was detained by police in Riyadh for wearing “immodest clothing” and the case was referred to the public prosecutor, state television said.

Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and a key U.S. ally in the battle against religious extremism, enforces one of the world’s strictest interpretations of the religion, largely the product of the ruling monarchy’s longstanding alliance with the powerful Sunni Muslim clerical establishment.

Women must wear loose, head-to-toe gowns known as abayas in public, though exceptions are made for foreign officials and their spouses. Most women wear all-black abayas and choose to wear face-covering veils known as niqabs.

Translation: “Had she been a foreigner, they would’ve raved over the beauty of her waistline and the attractiveness of her eyes. But because she’s Saudi, they’re after her prosecution.”

“The law must apply to her,” said a tweet from the account of Aisha Al Otaibi, ahead of the woman’s detention. “Europe forces women to remove their veils. In our country law is based on Islamic Shariah, and it must be respected. She insulted it and must be punished to teach a lesson.” The Twitter user’s profile said she is based in Jeddah.

There is no written penal code in Saudi Arabia, where judges issue verdicts based on interpretations of Islamic law, or Shariah.

The reaction to the video reflects internal tensions over the future of the kingdom, with those who are pushing for change pitted against those resisting it.

“A woman wanders in the heritage town of Ushayqir. The world has not come to an end—it’s a pleasant sight. There is no insult in it. She’s a human, she is a person,” said a tweet from the account of Waleed Al Nasser.CONTINUE AT SITE

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump’s Supporters Have His Back, Poll Finds Survey underscores many of the themes that led to the president’s surprise victory By Michael C. Bender

Posted By on July 19th, 2017

People in counties that propelled President Donald Trump’s election victory see him as the change agent needed to shake up political and economic systems that they said are stacked against them, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found.

The president’s job performance and his handling of the economy are viewed more favorably in these so-called Trump counties than in the rest of the nation, helping to overcome doubts some people have about the president’s personal qualities and some of his policy decisions.

The GOP president draws wide support in these counties for bargaining with employers to keep jobs in the U.S., with 75% of residents supporting those efforts and 14% opposing.

More than two-thirds of respondents in those counties back his signaling that he is willing to take action if North Korea goes further in developing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons, and a similar share backs his military response in April to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. A majority supports his push for a ban on entry into the U.S. residents of some countries.

In these counties, 50% said they approve of Mr. Trump’s job performance, compared with 46% who disapprove, the survey found. That is a stronger showing than the 40% in a nationwide Journal/NBC survey from last month who approved of Mr. Trump’s performance in office.

The survey underscored many of the themes that led to Mr. Trump’s surprising victory in November, most notably the resonance of his call to protect U.S. jobs and the unfavorable view that many voters took of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Hypocrites on the Temple Mount By Avrohom Gordimer

Posted By on July 19th, 2017

Palestinian Authority leader Rami Hamdallah has just warned of “grave consequences” and called on Muslims to “shoulder their responsibilities and put a stop to Israeli violations against Al-Aqsa Mosque and to provide international protection for our people and holy places.” The Fatah Party of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has called for a “Day of Rage.” Other Palestinian Authority spokesmen condemned the Israeli “fierce and organized attack against Jerusalem Arabs.” There have been nightly violent protest riots, in which large groups of Palestinians have assaulted Israeli police with rocks and bottles.

Reading the above, one would surmise that the Israelis must have done something horrific.

The Israelis’ crime? Installing metal detectors on the Temple Mount, and closing the Mount for two days due to extreme security concerns, immediately after Muslims shot two Israeli policemen dead there last Friday in a terror attack. There was also the discovery of numerous weapons being stored by Muslims on the Temple Mount.

Yes, the Israeli “crime” was that the nation dared to install metal detectors at the scene of a double-murder of its policemen and take basic security precautions. The Muslim terrorists are not the villains; that would be the Israeli police, who keep the Mount safe and allow innumerable Muslims to safely ascend there for prayer every day.

And there is more: Grand Mufti Mohammed Hussein, the Temple Mount’s chief Muslim cleric, has just warned Muslim worshipers that they should violate security protocol and refuse to enter through the metal detectors, as “Allah will not accept offered prayers through a Zionist metal detector” (!). Never mind that Saudi king Salman, who is the official custodian of the Temple Mount’s mosques, expressed a full understanding of the Israeli security upgrade. Never mind that the Saudis themselves have mandated the use of GPS bracelets at the annual Hajj pilgrimage to prevent violence and injury amid the millions of Muslims who travel to their prayer site in packed crowds for the Hajj’s rock-throwing ritual. Never mind that the violence and terror at the Temple Mount are solely the work of Muslims, and that the Israelis have acted with civility to assure security. Palestinian leadership, whose tools are deception, intimidation and violence, know better.

The West Bank security wall has greatly curbed Palestinian terror. Hopefully, the Temple Mount metal detectors will do the same. But the ingrates who ascend the Temple Mount to ask Allah to curse the Israelis, and who celebrate terror against Israelis, have it too good. Most countries would severely crack down on them, shut the Mount’s mosques for an extended period, and take really forceful action.

The Israelis act with restraint but with a strong dose of reality. And Palestinian leadership responds with lies, delusion and violence.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Another lopsided trade: Israel compromises, Palestinians keep everything By Shoshana Bryen

Posted By on July 19th, 2017

On Friday, two Israeli policemen were murdered on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The same day, Seth Siegel wrote in The New York Times, “A Good Story about Israel and the Palestinians,” detailing how Israeli and Palestinians sat on a dais to announce an update on the Red Sea-Dead Sea project. Siegel, author of Let There be Water, is probably Israel’s greatest water expert, and his understanding of the challenges of water use and distribution in Israel and with its neighbors is unsurpassed. But what he passes off as a “good story” is simply the old story of Israel giving something to the Palestinians (and Jordan) in exchange for a phony smile.

The agreement includes no change in the Palestinian Authority’s nasty attitude or incitement to violence against Israel. No decision to stop paying terrorists for killing Jews. There was condemnation of Israeli security measures after the murders from P.A. strongman Mahmoud Abbas, King Abdullah of Jordan, and the Arab League – not a positive comment from any of them about the water project. The extent of the good news appears to be that Palestinian water officials were permitted to accept Israeli-generated improvements in Palestinian life.

Reviewing Siegel’s excellent book a year ago, I wrote:

Rawabi, a planned Palestinian community, is a case in point. Existing Palestinian-Israeli protocols require the two sides to meet to discuss new pipelines for the town, but for years the PA refused to convene a meeting on principle. After the developer was nearly bankrupt and the PA was telling the world Israel was withholding water from thirsty Palestinians, Israel finally just turned on the water. The PA called it a win, but for the Palestinians who invested in the construction of the town and the Palestinians who hoped to live and work there, the delay was no win at all.

Siegel acknowledges precisely that in the Times:

Beginning in 2008, the Palestinian leadership decided to turn water into a political tool to bludgeon Israel. The claim, which gained currency among some in the human rights community and the news media, was that Israel was starving Palestinians of water to oppress them and to break their economy. Never mind that Israel was scrupulously adhering to the Oslo Agreement and providing more than half of all of all of the water used by Palestinians in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority and its supporters began to speak of Israel’s “water apartheid.”

In short form: Palestinian leadership subjects its people to limited dirty water or no water so it can blame Israel for the limited dirty water or no water.

It did the same in Gaza, as I wrote then in covering Siegel’s book:

Gaza is a disaster ready to happen – happening already, in fact – between illegal wells draining the aquifer, salt water running in to fill the space, and lack of sewage treatment. When Israel had farms inside Gaza, the deal was to supply an amount of water to Gaza authorities equal to the amount used by the farms. When, in 2005, Israel left Gaza, the government continued providing the water – and later doubled the amount. But that doesn’t address the underlying issues.

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

The Iran-Deal Swindle We thought we were the ones buying time. By Elliot Kaufman

Posted By on July 18th, 2017

Two years on, the Iranian nuclear deal is a failure.

Some will surely protest that this cannot be; on Monday, the Trump administration just indicated that it plans to certify Iranian compliance to Congress. But that certification does not mean what it may seem to.

It certainly does not indicate that Iran has been in perfect compliance with the deal. Iran has already exceeded its limits on uranium enrichment and production of heavy water on several occasions. Furthermore, a series of recent German intelligence reports discovered Iranian efforts to procure technology that “can be used to develop plutonium for nuclear weapons.” One report concluded there was “no evidence” of the “complete about-face in Iran’s atomic policies” that had been hoped for.

But of course there’s no evidence of that. This was the central flaw of the Iran deal: There was never any reason to suspect that the nature or aims of the Iranian regime had changed. Iran of course has scaled back its nuclear advances, but the Supreme Leader and his cronies still seek to obtain a nuclear weapon to fortify their regime, advance Iranian regional hegemony, and threaten Israel. Until this changes, the Iranians can safely be expected to use any deal to better pursue those aims. This is why it matters when H. R. McMaster, director of the National Security Council, explains that Iran has violated the spirit of the agreement.

So why does Trump plan to certify compliance? One debilitating weakness of the Iran deal is that there are no punishment mechanisms short of re-imposing sanctions, at which point Iran can reasonably argue that the deal is dead and it is free to pursue whatever nuclear advances it wants.

The deal provides a process whereby America can allege misconduct and force the U.N. Security Council to vote on a resolution. This resolution would maintain the deal’s suspension of sanctions, so any veto — including the U.S.’s own — would trigger the reestablishment of the legal basis for sanctions. But there are several hurdles to getting the sanctions to “snap back” as promised.

As Eric Lorber and Peter Feaver wrote in Foreign Policy, “An effective sanctions regime consists of a legal basis, the institutional capacity to implement the sanctions, and the political will to carry it through. This course of action only provides for the first.” Indeed, if the sanctions are rejected by Russia or opposed by European allies eager to continue trading with Iran, both of which are likely in the absence of truly flagrant Iranian violations, the sanctions regime will not be effective. It might not even get off the ground and certainly will fail to pressure Iran the way our previous sanctions regime, which took a decade to ratchet up, did. That’s why formally alleging Iranian misconduct is extremely risky: It would unleash Iran and offer only weak and disunited sanctions.

This means that incremental Iranian cheating will likely continue to go unpunished. The best we can do is remain neutral, neither certifying compliance nor alleging noncompliance. But even with this meek third route, declined by the Trump administration this time, the deal leaves us helpless to stop Iran from slowly — never radically — preparing itself to push for a nuclear weapon once the deal’s restrictions wear off in ten and 15 years.

That’s why the deal will be certified. But why is it a failure? Some might say that pushing back a confrontation with Iran by ten or 15 years is a major accomplishment. We’ve bought ourselves time, claimed the deal’s advocates, over and over again.

Philip Gordon and Richard Nephew, two of the Obama-administration officials who negotiated the Iran deal, now repeat this mantra in The Atlantic. The deal was supposed to “buy time for potential changes in Iranian politics and foreign policy,” they write. But have we actually bought ourselves time?

What if it is Iran that has been buying time, using the sanctions relief to put itself in a stronger position for an eventual confrontation? What if, at the end of the Iran deal, Iran is stronger economically, geopolitically, and domestically, while we find ourselves with less power in the region and bereft of an international sanctions coalition?

Then, you might say, we got swindled.

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Trump Administration Slaps Iran With Additional Sanctions Sanctioning of more than a dozen people, entities follows decision to certify Iran’s compliance with nuclear deal By Felicia Schwartz

Posted By on July 18th, 2017

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration on Tuesday leveled more sanctions against Iran, targeting its elite military unit and ballistic missile program in a move that heightened tensions between the two countries and raised new questions about the fate of the 2015 international nuclear deal.

The sanctions came after the administration told Congress late Monday that Iran was continuing to comply with the 2015 international nuclear agreement, a notification that kept the accord in place for now. But that determination came after an intense debate within the administration over whether to certify Iran’s compliance, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

“This administration will continue to aggressively target Iran’s malign activity, including their ongoing state support of terrorism, ballistic missile program, and human-rights abuses,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in imposing the new sanctions Tuesday.

Referring to the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mr. Mnuchin said, “We will continue to target the IRGC and pressure Iran to cease its ballistic missile program and malign activities in the region.”

The Trump administration is reviewing the nuclear agreement and its policy toward Iran, a move that has European allies worried about the fate of the deal.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the U.S. would meet its commitments as the review progressed and would press Iran to do the same. The U.S. will next have to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal in October, and some officials expect the review will be completed by then.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the new sanctions, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Iran will retaliate by placing its own sanctions on American entities, the ministry said, adding that those targeted would be named soon.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Tuesday’s sanctions “poison the atmosphere.”

“That’s what they’re designed to do, actually,” he said in an interview with CBS. “They’re not designed to help anybody, because they know that none of them ever travel to the United States or will have an account in the U.S.”

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the 2015 nuclear agreement is formally known, was championed by the Obama administration as a way to obtain Iran’s agreement to significantly cut back its nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions. CONTINUE AT SITE

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Our Changing News Climate Why even New York Times readers may resist the faith. James Freeman

Posted By on July 18th, 2017

Just exactly how much has the climate changed in recent decades? Longtime New York Times readers can be forgiven if they are now thoroughly confused on the matter.

Last month this column noted that the actions of the New York Times suggest that the people who put out the newspaper don’t think burning carbon is as dangerous as one would think from reading their product. How else to explain their marketing effort to persuade well-heeled readers to increase emissions by travelling the globe aboard a barely-filled Boeing ? And now, one particularly industrious Times reader submits evidence of another reason to resist the paper’s climate faith. In this case the skepticism about global warming comes not from refusing to take the paper seriously but from taking it too seriously.

Anyone old enough to have been a Times reader in the late 1980s may recall a series of stories that helped educate the public on how cool our planet used to be. Here’s one report from March of 1988:

One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations.

The paper returned to the topic in June of that year, and reminded readers of the planet’s colder past:

Dr. Hansen, who records temperatures from readings at monitoring stations around the world, had previously reported that four of the hottest years on record occurred in the 1980’s. Compared with a 30-year base period from 1950 to 1980, when the global temperature averaged 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature was one-third of a degree higher last year.

The following year, the paper reported a new record high in global temperatures and affirmed its climate history, which seemed to be the consensus view—at least among scientists quoted by the Times:

The British readings showed that the average global temperature in 1988 was 0.612 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average for the period 1950 through 1979, which is a base for comparing global temperatures. The average worldwide temperature for that 30-year period is roughly 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the British researchers said.

In 1991, the Times reported yet another record high, and published yet another reminder of how cool the planet used to be:

The Goddard group found that the record average surface temperature for the globe was eight-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 average of 59 degrees. The British group found it seventh-tenths of a degree higher than the 1951-80 average.

By that point a reasonable consumer might have been ardently hoping to return to that magical era in which global temperatures averaged just 59 degrees. But in the ensuing years it must have been difficult for Times readers to stay hopeful. As the years and then the decades rolled by, The Times routinely reported record or near-record highs as global temperatures appeared to march ever higher.

In January of this year, the newspaper published a feature entitled, “How 2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record.” The Times noted the disturbing news that “2016 was the first time that the hottest year on record occurred three times in a row.” And things could be about to get much worse. “We expect records to continue to be broken as global warming proceeds,” climate enthusiast Michael Mann told the Times.

Is there any way to return to the salad days of 59 degrees? Well, it turns out to be easier than you might think. In January, as the government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was reporting the third consecutive year of record highs, it noted that the average global temperature in 2016 had surged to a sizzling… 58.69 degrees.

Over the years researchers seem to have concluded that the planet was not as hot as they thought. Oops.

The most important facts in the climate debate are subject to frequent revisions. This doesn’t mean the global warming thesis is wrong, but it argues for skepticism. The Journal’s Holman Jenkins noted in 2015:

By the count of researcher Marcia Wyatt in a widely circulated presentation, the U.S. government’s published temperature data for the years 1880 to 2010 has been tinkered with 16 times in the past three years.

While waiting for the science to settle, this column’s advice to Times readers is to go ahead and fly around the world on the newspaper’s luxurious jet—if you don’t mind the company. CONTINUE AT SITE

BOOKS Comments turned off

The Red Cross and the Holocaust As early as 1933, the Red Cross received letters from Dachau, including one pleading: ‘I beg you again in the name of the prisoners—Help! Help!.’ Samuel Moyn reviews “Humanitarians at War” by Gerald Steinacher.

Posted By on July 18th, 2017

By the eve of World War II, the International Committee of the Red Cross had reshaped the landscape of humanitarianism. Founded in 1863 by Henry Dunant, a Swiss businessman appalled by the carnage he saw on an Italian battlefield, the organization had made itself the central player in the modern law of war. Having organized the conference that drew up the original Geneva Conventions, the ICRC was formally empowered to tend to wounded, sick and imprisoned soldiers and to ensure that they were humanely treated rather than left for dead. The ICRC had given rise to Red Cross organizations around the world, including in the United States, and had begun attending to disasters, natural and manmade.

But what began as an organization meant to curb the barbarity of warfare has found it difficult to live down its most grievous mistake: cozying up to the Third Reich, remaining silent about the Holocaust and later helping Nazis escape justice. In his last book, “Nazis on the Run: How Hitler’s Henchmen Fled Justice” (2011), historian Gerald Steinacher chronicled one aspect of this shameful era. His newest effort, “Humanitarians at War: The Red Cross in the Shadow of the Holocaust,” synthesizes what he and other historians have learned about the ICRC’s conduct during this troublesome period before adding new material on what the organization did next. This more comprehensive account of the ICRC’s actions equips the reader to decide whether the organization truly recovered from its wartime and postwar errors.

Much of “Humanitarians at War” re-treads the ICRC’s missteps in those dark years, rightly laying most of the blame on Switzerland’s Carl Jacob Burckhardt. With the ICRC’s moralistic Christian president, Max Huber, elderly and often ill during the 1930s, it was Burckhardt, his second in command, who made major decisions regarding relations with Adolf Hitler’s government. A diplomat and known careerist, Burckhardt harbored a traditional anti-Semitism and such hatred of communism that he regarded German Nazism as a bulwark of civilization and a necessary evil. As early as April 1933, the ICRC was receiving desperate letters from inmates of German concentration camps, including one from Dachau pleading: “‘I beg you again in the name of the prisoners—Help! Help!’” Yet as Mr. Steinacher writes, during this period Burckhardt was given an inspection tour “and officially lauded the commandant of Dachau for his discipline and decency.”

It wasn’t just willfully repeating the Germans’ propaganda that stained the ICRC. Nor was it only the fact that, knowing the Nazis had confirmed their policy of mass extermination of the Jews at the 1942 Wannsee Conference, the ICRC did nothing to intervene. What was more difficult to defend was Burckhardt’s sympathies with and efforts on behalf of Nazi actors after Germany’s defeat. He opposed the Nuremberg trials, labeling them “Jewish revenge.” Red Cross officials attempted to whitewash the record of Nuremberg defendant and high-ranking Nazi diplomat Ernst von Weizsäcker. After the Holocaust, the ICRC—by then helmed by Burckhardt—even abetted the flight of Nazis such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele by providing them with travel papers. CONTINUE AT SITE

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The President’s Base vs. the Republican Party Trump voters care more about having a leader who understands them than about quick policy wins.By Jason L. Riley

Posted By on July 18th, 2017

The GOP’s inability to scrap ObamaCare this week means, among other things, that President Trump will end his first six months in office without a major legislative accomplishment. And one question is how much his supporters care.

Recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling gives the president a 40% job-approval rating among all voters, while 55% disapprove. In counties Mr. Trump won last year, however, voters still back him by 50% to 46%. Similar results come from a Washington Post/ABC News survey released Sunday, which found that the president’s approval rating had slid to 36% from 42% in April, while his disapproval rating had climbed five points to 58%. Yet among Republican voters over the same period, Mr. Trump’s favorability has barely budged and remains above 80%.

Moreover, these polling results reflect voter sentiment since news broke that Donald Trump Jr. met during the campaign with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton —the latest development in the Kremlin “collusion” narrative that has saturated cable news for months. According to the Post/ABC poll, 41% of all voters believe that the Trump campaign helped Russia try to influence the election, but that belief is shared by fewer than 1 in 10 Republican voters. The average Trump supporter’s concern about Russia roughly matches his concern about the president’s unreleased tax returns or witching-hour tweets.

Six months into the Trump presidency, the media by and large remain unable or unwilling to understand what drives his blue-collar supporters. Journalists continue to prioritize their own political concerns and play down those of the nearly 63 million people who pulled the lever for him in November. In her new book, “White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America,” Joan C. Williams writes that “during an era when wealthy white Americans have learned to sympathetically imagine the lives of the poor, people of color, and LGBTQ people, the white working class has been insulted or ignored during precisely the period when their economic fortunes tanked.”

In an essay on the rising rate of premature deaths from suicide, opioids and alcohol poisoning primarily among less-educated whites, Carol Graham of the Brookings Institution observes that “poor blacks and Hispanics are much more optimistic about their futures than are poor whites and, in turn, mortality rates have not increased the same way among minorities.” She adds, “A critical factor is the plight of the white blue-collar worker, for whom hopes for making it to a stable, middle-class life have largely disappeared. Due in large part to technology-driven growth, blue-collar jobs in the traditional primary and secondary industries—such as coal mines and car factories—are gradually disappearing.”

Mr. Trump’s ability to appeal to these voters is the reason he won and the reason his base isn’t abandoning him, with or without a significant legislative victory at the six-month mark. Emily Ekins, a Cato Institute scholar who is part of a politically diverse team of academics and pollsters in the process of analyzing the 2016 election, told me on Monday that Trump supporters are less concerned about his policy agenda and more interested in having someone who understands them occupy the Oval Office. The president’s relentless rhetoric about the “costs” of illegal immigration and free trade, his attacks on outsourcing, and this week’s White House “Made in America” stunt are all of a piece.

“I think there’s a lot of evidence to support the idea that Trump’s main appeal was validating the fears and concerns of a certain segment of Americans who felt they were being ignored by elites in the media, elites in politics, elite Republicans,” said Ms. Ekins. “My reading of the data is that he’s not on a timer or a clock. And it’s not clear to me that his supporters are waiting for him to achieve X, Y and Z policy goals. That’s an example of the press imposing their expectations on voters.”CONTINUE AT SITE

MEDIA Comments turned off

‘Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly’ Reaches New Viewership Low Kelly’s attempt at hard-hitting political analysis struggles to do well in the ratings.

Posted By on July 18th, 2017

When Megyn Kelly publicly defected to NBC from Fox News following the Roger Ailes sexual harassment scandal, it was pretty much assumed by her new employer (and former fans) that Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly would be a major player in the broadcast news magazine space. And on paper, it looked exactly like that: It promised hard-hitting interviews, a more conservative-friendly target audience, and big-name guests like Vladimir Putin.

But ever since that first interview—and most notably after Kelly decided to feature conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on the show—the show’s ratings have been in free fall.

As The Hill tweeted out last night, Kelly’s latest show was beaten out by a rerun of America’s Funniest Home Videos. And Ad Age TV reporter Anthony Crupi provided the crippling data points:

Through 6 episodes, the show is averaging just 941,332 members of the target demo (adults 25-54). This experiment ends w/ the new a.m. show.

NBC has a tough decision ahead if their would-be star doesn’t start producing better numbers on Sunday nights. That said, Kelly has nothing to worry about at the moment, though, as she’s still tapped to launch a morning show this fall.