Professor Simon: "Thanks for your thoughtful letter. Letters to the Editor are not the best medium for the development of complex ideas. I did not mean to deny that there is a liberal bias in the academy or to assert that the conservative views disfavored in the academy or (sic, are) all racist or dogmatic. I meant (a) the bias is exaggerated, and (b) SOME of what appears to be bias is due to the fact that the views legitimately disfavored in the academy are more common among conservatives than liberals. I'm sure we disagree about much but perhaps not as much as you thought, and I'm sorry the letter wasn't clearer."
The Truth-Uncensored: "Thank you for your reply. But, when you have a minute, I would appreciate it if you could point out those views that are "legitimately disfavored.". What conservative views do you believe are racist, misogynistic or homophobic? Because that is the crux of the debate. I would very much appreciate your comments on those issues. Obviously, I am unable to compel you to reply. However, as your piece in the Times reads, it comes across as many on the left do: disagree with me and you are a (fill in the blank)."
Professor Simon: "We probably don't agree about what counts as racist; so I doubt it would be productive to argue the point. There is a substantial amount of research suggesting that there is some correlation between unambiguously racist views and support for the Republican Party. See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/11/what-social-science-tells-us-about-racism-in-the-republican-party/. I do not suggest that there are not legitimate reasons to take most conservative positions. My suggestion is that the disfavoring of the positions that are explicitly racist (etc.) would disproportionately affect self-identified conservatives."
The Truth-Uncensored: "Hello Professor. This will be my last email to you as it appears you do not wish to engage further, and I certainly do not wish to be a bother. I have to say that I find it odd that you do not believe we could agree on what constitutes racism. Are you including in your definition opposition to Obama and his policies? Are you including those who say all lives matter?
I have a good rapport with virtually all the attorneys that oppose me. Men, women, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, whatever. I have represented clients from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Racism is obnoxious and totally unacceptable. But, if you truly believe that we cannot agree on a definition for racism, then I must conclude that you are defining racism through a leftist lens. In that case, almost anything can be taken as "code words" for racism. "States rights?" Racist. Smaller government? Racist. Balanced budget? Racist. (Yes, I know there was a time when southern Democrats used "states rights" as a way to continue segregation. We are not far apart in age.)
You refer me to an article about racism. First, they quote Harry Reid, one of the most despicable Senate Majority Leaders in our history. Recall during the last Presidential election Reid said from the Senate floor that he knew Mitt Romney had not paid taxes. It was a lie, of course. Further, he could not legally know what any citizen pays in taxes. When asked years later if he wished to withdraw that comment and apologize, he answered to the effect of 'well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?'
And that reflects one of my main problems with the left. It is an "ends justify the means" mentality. For example, gay marriage is good; therefore it is acceptable to threaten the business and even lives of the family that would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Palestinians are oppressed; therefore it is permissible to shout down the Israeli ambassador and prevent him from speaking, as was done at UC Irvine. After all, some views are "legitimately disfavored." But who gets to decide which views? Only the left, apparently.
Do you believe racism is the main problem facing our country? Some on the left have told me that nothing has improved for blacks over the last 50 years. The only way to account for such a conclusion is a saying I have: liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.
No, Professor, the main internal threat facing our country is leftism. The left is on a never ending path towards tyranny. I gave you some examples in my prior emails. A willingness to dispense with the First Amendment, and the Second. A willingness to have a political litmus test for the right to do business; although I doubt many of those holding such beliefs recognize their apparent affinity for Joe McCarthy. Are you now, or have you ever been: opposed to gay marriage? Opposed to abortion? Opposed to open borders? Opposed to a Palestinian state? And so on.
I trust that you understand that today's Democratic Party is generally devoid of classical liberals. People who welcomed debate, rather than attempting to shut it down beforehand, by declaring certain viewpoints as being legitimately disfavored. People who shared the same fundamental values as conservatives hold today. No. Today's Democrats are leftists and socialists, with little or no appreciation for our system of government, or for traditional American values, or for the US Constitution. With leftists in charge the future for the American ideal of liberty is not bright. I wish you well.
P.S. It won't hurt you to read some of my blog posts. Honestly. http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com"
Thursday, May 19, 2016
An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part I
Earlier this month Nicholas Kristof, liberal writer at the New York Times, wrote a piece discussing the lack of ideological diversity in academia. Citing four different studies, he said that the percentage of Republicans in the humanities is from 6% to 11%, and in the social sciences from 7% to 9%. But 18% in the social sciences identify as Marxists.
Said Kristof: "When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kind of thinkers aren't at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards - and we all lose." Not all Times readers agreed, and this past Sunday the Times printed several letters disagreeing with Kristof. One letter writer, William H. Simon, a professor at Columbia Law School, disagreed with Kristof. What follows below is Professor Simon's letter, and our subsequent email exchange.
Professor Simon: "Nicholas Kristof exaggerates the problem of liberal bias in the academy. It is not the job of the university to represent all the views held in the surrounding society. The commitment to critical inquiry requires it to disfavor some views based on religious dogma, social convention or superstition. The goal of a community of mutual respect requires it to disfavor others, including those that are explicitly racist, misogynist or homophobic. Such views can be expressed in the university, but it is not a cause for concern that academics do not espouse them in their teaching and research. Much of the disparity between views in the academy and in the Republican Party is attributable to their varying social bases. Academics tend to be educated and middle class. The current Republican Party is constituted disproportionately of the undereducated and the wealthy.
That education leads people to different views is neither surprising nor, on its face, disturbing. And if it is a problem that the views of rich people are underrepresented in the academy, they have had little trouble making up for this disadvantage in the media and the political system."
The Truth-Uncensored: "Clearly, you have impressive credentials: Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law, professor at Columbia Law. Sadly, you do not come across as one might expect with those credentials. As a conservative, I am used to being called all sorts of derogatory names, much as you have done. As an aside, my credentials are not as impressive: Rutgers undergrad and UCLA Law. Also, I work in the real world, representing injured workers in workers compensation claims.
I find it disappointing that the argumentative style of many on the left is simple name calling. Oppose abortion? You hate women. Oppose gay marriage? Hate gays and are homophobic. Oppose open borders? Racist, hate Latinos. Do not wish to remake the world economy based on some warming? Anti-scientific. Favor Israel over the Palestinians? Colonialist. I could go on, but I know you get the point.
Some in the the mainstream papers, such as the NYT, engage in these tactics. Some in academia engage in this tactic. And, not surprisingly, those liberals with whom I speak, including other attorneys who should know how to debate an issue, often use the same tactic. So, if I may ask, what makes one racist to you? Oppose Obama's policies? Believe that all lives matter? What constitutes misogyny to you? Opposing abortion? Not believing the government should dictate salaries in the private sector? Homophobia? If one opposes gay marriage? I do. Yet, I have two cousins who are gay and I actually communicate with them - and they with me.
Academics tend to be educated and Republicans uneducated? Are you referring to formal education? There are people I know with not nearly as much formal education as you and I have who have other things going for them - good values and common sense. So what about Republicans who have the requisite formal education? Would you bar them from academia? Based on what?
"Education leads people to different views..." I agree. The propaganda (you call it education) that one gets at many colleges and universities does lead to different views. This might be why polls show that young people are no particular fans of the First Amendment. But, it makes sense. Once you decide that those with a different viewpoint are bigots, racists, homophobic, etc., then why should they be given the opportunity to speak? Are you concerned that young people would ban what would otherwise be considered constitutionally protected speech? Are you concerned that the university today is one of the least diverse places in America, in terms of beliefs? Are you concerned that college students need "safe places" when they might be exposed to a differing viewpoint? Which is not a luxury youth serving in the military get to have.
When the Mayor of NYC, along with other mayors across the country, seeks to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in his city - or at least hopes to prevent them from being successful - are you in agreement? Are you not disturbed that such an attitude is totally unAmerican? Or, do you believe that all applications for business licenses should ask the prospective licensees if they believe in abortion, gay marriage, global warming, etc? Now, we have an admitted socialist running as a major party candidate for president. Young people favor him, not knowing that capitalism has provided more wealth to more people than any other system in the history of the world. I wonder how they'll get the latest updates to their iPhones without capitalism.
Thankfully, some of my liberal friends are actually able to engage in intelligent debate. Those who call names or have no intellectual honesty I tend to avoid. I look forward to any comments that you may wish to make in reply.
P.S. If you are so inclined to read another viewpoint, I write a conservative political blog at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com"
Said Kristof: "When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kind of thinkers aren't at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards - and we all lose." Not all Times readers agreed, and this past Sunday the Times printed several letters disagreeing with Kristof. One letter writer, William H. Simon, a professor at Columbia Law School, disagreed with Kristof. What follows below is Professor Simon's letter, and our subsequent email exchange.
Professor Simon: "Nicholas Kristof exaggerates the problem of liberal bias in the academy. It is not the job of the university to represent all the views held in the surrounding society. The commitment to critical inquiry requires it to disfavor some views based on religious dogma, social convention or superstition. The goal of a community of mutual respect requires it to disfavor others, including those that are explicitly racist, misogynist or homophobic. Such views can be expressed in the university, but it is not a cause for concern that academics do not espouse them in their teaching and research. Much of the disparity between views in the academy and in the Republican Party is attributable to their varying social bases. Academics tend to be educated and middle class. The current Republican Party is constituted disproportionately of the undereducated and the wealthy.
That education leads people to different views is neither surprising nor, on its face, disturbing. And if it is a problem that the views of rich people are underrepresented in the academy, they have had little trouble making up for this disadvantage in the media and the political system."
The Truth-Uncensored: "Clearly, you have impressive credentials: Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law, professor at Columbia Law. Sadly, you do not come across as one might expect with those credentials. As a conservative, I am used to being called all sorts of derogatory names, much as you have done. As an aside, my credentials are not as impressive: Rutgers undergrad and UCLA Law. Also, I work in the real world, representing injured workers in workers compensation claims.
I find it disappointing that the argumentative style of many on the left is simple name calling. Oppose abortion? You hate women. Oppose gay marriage? Hate gays and are homophobic. Oppose open borders? Racist, hate Latinos. Do not wish to remake the world economy based on some warming? Anti-scientific. Favor Israel over the Palestinians? Colonialist. I could go on, but I know you get the point.
Some in the the mainstream papers, such as the NYT, engage in these tactics. Some in academia engage in this tactic. And, not surprisingly, those liberals with whom I speak, including other attorneys who should know how to debate an issue, often use the same tactic. So, if I may ask, what makes one racist to you? Oppose Obama's policies? Believe that all lives matter? What constitutes misogyny to you? Opposing abortion? Not believing the government should dictate salaries in the private sector? Homophobia? If one opposes gay marriage? I do. Yet, I have two cousins who are gay and I actually communicate with them - and they with me.
Academics tend to be educated and Republicans uneducated? Are you referring to formal education? There are people I know with not nearly as much formal education as you and I have who have other things going for them - good values and common sense. So what about Republicans who have the requisite formal education? Would you bar them from academia? Based on what?
"Education leads people to different views..." I agree. The propaganda (you call it education) that one gets at many colleges and universities does lead to different views. This might be why polls show that young people are no particular fans of the First Amendment. But, it makes sense. Once you decide that those with a different viewpoint are bigots, racists, homophobic, etc., then why should they be given the opportunity to speak? Are you concerned that young people would ban what would otherwise be considered constitutionally protected speech? Are you concerned that the university today is one of the least diverse places in America, in terms of beliefs? Are you concerned that college students need "safe places" when they might be exposed to a differing viewpoint? Which is not a luxury youth serving in the military get to have.
When the Mayor of NYC, along with other mayors across the country, seeks to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in his city - or at least hopes to prevent them from being successful - are you in agreement? Are you not disturbed that such an attitude is totally unAmerican? Or, do you believe that all applications for business licenses should ask the prospective licensees if they believe in abortion, gay marriage, global warming, etc? Now, we have an admitted socialist running as a major party candidate for president. Young people favor him, not knowing that capitalism has provided more wealth to more people than any other system in the history of the world. I wonder how they'll get the latest updates to their iPhones without capitalism.
Thankfully, some of my liberal friends are actually able to engage in intelligent debate. Those who call names or have no intellectual honesty I tend to avoid. I look forward to any comments that you may wish to make in reply.
P.S. If you are so inclined to read another viewpoint, I write a conservative political blog at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com"
Sunday, May 8, 2016
The Undoing of America
In my 8/2/12 post ("Why I Am No Longer a Democrat") I discussed how the left wanted to destroy Chick-Fil-A after the owner expressed his personal view that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman. Mayors and city council members from across the country (Boston, D.C., Chicago and San Francisco) expressed their desire to keep Chick-Fil-A from doing business in their cities.
Now, with Chick-Fil-A having opened in New York City, the socialist mayor there piled on. Said Mayor Bill de Blasio: "I'm certainly not going to patronize them (Chick-Fil-A) and I wouldn't urge any other New Yorker to patronize them." Added City Councilman Daniel Dromm, Chick-Fil-A has a "message of hate." De Blasio: "What the ownership of Chick-Fil-A has said is wrong." Well, that's de Blasio's opinion. And while gay marriage is legal, I thought in America people are still entitled to their personal religious beliefs.
Perhaps de Blasio and the other critical mayors could open up a Department of Political Correctness. Then, before any business is granted a license to do business in the city they could ask questions. They could ask all the left-wing talking points. Do you believe in marriage equality? Do you believe in a woman's right to choose? Do you believe in open borders? Do you support the Palestinians, or Israel? And on and on.
Am I just kidding? Of course. But these mayors and city council members are not. How did they come to believe that in America either you agree with us or we don't want your business in our city? All the above-referenced mayors and council members are Democrats. They are elected officials who do not believe in our Constitution. They do not believe in freedom.
A group of state attorneys general have joined forces - calling themselves "AGs United for Clean Power." The AGs are from 15 states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State) and Washington, D.C. and the Virgin Islands. Not surprisingly, all are Democrats, except for the Virgin Islands A.G. who is an independent.
These AGs are looking into legal action against companies that deny climate change. Even the US AG, Loretta Lynch, is looking into it. Said New York AG Eric Schneiderman: "The bottom line is simple: climate change is real." So, not only must a business agree with the left-wing agenda, if they do not step in line they risk legal action. Will the AGs file civil actions, seeking nonetary damages? Will they criminally prosecute, seeking imprisonment of those who disagree? Or, will they set up "reprogramming camps" where offenders can be taught the error of their beliefs? Who is the main target? Exxon Mobil. The left is not only willing to upend our Constitution and have companies punished for speech on an issue that is NOT settled; they also want to entirely eliminate the fossil fuel industry. Hillary told us that she would put an end to the coal industry. Oil and gas will be next.
I have to say, I get rather annoyed when people give me the left-wing/mainstream media talking point about how "extreme" the Republican Party has become. You want extreme? It's all the above-mentioned Democrats with their totally un-American ideas. It's an open and avowed Socialist running for the highest office in the land - as a Democrat. And it's the idea that our founding governing document, the Constitution, is deemed too outdated, too racist, too sexist. Not only do many of my friends on the left not see what is coming their way, but by the time they do (if they ever do) it may be too late.
Now, with Chick-Fil-A having opened in New York City, the socialist mayor there piled on. Said Mayor Bill de Blasio: "I'm certainly not going to patronize them (Chick-Fil-A) and I wouldn't urge any other New Yorker to patronize them." Added City Councilman Daniel Dromm, Chick-Fil-A has a "message of hate." De Blasio: "What the ownership of Chick-Fil-A has said is wrong." Well, that's de Blasio's opinion. And while gay marriage is legal, I thought in America people are still entitled to their personal religious beliefs.
Perhaps de Blasio and the other critical mayors could open up a Department of Political Correctness. Then, before any business is granted a license to do business in the city they could ask questions. They could ask all the left-wing talking points. Do you believe in marriage equality? Do you believe in a woman's right to choose? Do you believe in open borders? Do you support the Palestinians, or Israel? And on and on.
Am I just kidding? Of course. But these mayors and city council members are not. How did they come to believe that in America either you agree with us or we don't want your business in our city? All the above-referenced mayors and council members are Democrats. They are elected officials who do not believe in our Constitution. They do not believe in freedom.
A group of state attorneys general have joined forces - calling themselves "AGs United for Clean Power." The AGs are from 15 states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State) and Washington, D.C. and the Virgin Islands. Not surprisingly, all are Democrats, except for the Virgin Islands A.G. who is an independent.
These AGs are looking into legal action against companies that deny climate change. Even the US AG, Loretta Lynch, is looking into it. Said New York AG Eric Schneiderman: "The bottom line is simple: climate change is real." So, not only must a business agree with the left-wing agenda, if they do not step in line they risk legal action. Will the AGs file civil actions, seeking nonetary damages? Will they criminally prosecute, seeking imprisonment of those who disagree? Or, will they set up "reprogramming camps" where offenders can be taught the error of their beliefs? Who is the main target? Exxon Mobil. The left is not only willing to upend our Constitution and have companies punished for speech on an issue that is NOT settled; they also want to entirely eliminate the fossil fuel industry. Hillary told us that she would put an end to the coal industry. Oil and gas will be next.
I have to say, I get rather annoyed when people give me the left-wing/mainstream media talking point about how "extreme" the Republican Party has become. You want extreme? It's all the above-mentioned Democrats with their totally un-American ideas. It's an open and avowed Socialist running for the highest office in the land - as a Democrat. And it's the idea that our founding governing document, the Constitution, is deemed too outdated, too racist, too sexist. Not only do many of my friends on the left not see what is coming their way, but by the time they do (if they ever do) it may be too late.
You Can Fool Many People All of the Time
Take Obamacare. We were going to insure tens of millions of more people - at no additional cost. Remember "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance?" And "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?" Then we heard the truth when video surfaced of comments by Jonathan Gruber. Gruber was a main architect of the deceptively named Affordable Care Act.
Gruber told us that the ACA passed because of its lack of transparency, and because of the "stupidity of the American voter." Gruber also told us how to really control costs - deny treatment. Gruber: "The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can't have something they want." But, "you can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it."
Or take global warming/climate change. You know, "it's settled." Like science is ever supposed to be settled. The White House loved telling us "97% of scientists agree." Except, it's not true. A 10/8/15 article in the National Review referred to a 2012 survey of 1862 people in the climate field. The American Meteorological Society conducted the survey and found that 51% of those surveyed agreed that human activity is the main cause of global warming. That is hardly 97%. But 23% said there was insufficient data to reach a conclusion, and 11% concluded warming was equally from natural causes as from human activity.
The article also told of a 2015 survey of 1868 scientists in the climate field. 30% said that less than half of global warming since 1951 is attributable to human activity or is of unknown causes. 97% agree? Not hardly. Or, how about the 1975 Newsweek article describing the possible beginning of a mini ice-age. The article described "a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." Reference was also made to the "bitter winters (in) much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900."
I was just asked why we Republicans have to make everything political, such as global warming. Really? Because it is political. Because many of those pushing the fear of global warming do, in fact, have an agenda. One professor at Cal State University, Northridge has an ebook entitled "Capitalism and Climate Change, the Science and Politics of Global Warming." The online introductory comments tell us that "the climate crisis is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced." But then we get the real agenda - the political agenda - "clear evidence and compelling arguments are presented to demonstrate the impossibility of adequately addressing the climate crisis within the framework of capitalism." How's that for a political take on global warming - it's all about getting rid of capitalism!
You see, for the left it's always about economics and politics. Gruber told us that we'd have to take money from the wealthier people to cover poorer people. Of course that is political - how do we redistribute goods and services in society? Some global warming advocates have openly told us that their goal is to redistribute wealth from wealthier countries to poorer countries. And the Cal State professor tells us we need to get rid of capitalism.
So, what's the latest? Ben Rhodes is the Deputy National Security Adviser in the Obama White House. In an interview with the New York Times, Rhodes said "we created an echo chamber." He explained that with regards to the Iran nuke deal, the Administration used/manipulated "experts" so that "they were saying things that validated what we had given them to say." We were also told that after a so-called moderate was elected President of Iran, Obama saw an opening that might make a deal possible. Except, it turns out that the negotiations actually began when the hardliner was still in office.
We know the mainstream media is overwhelmingly left-wing. As such, they have already been predisposed to simply write whatever the Obama Administration tells them. In addition, Rhodes tells us how easily he believes the press can be manipulated. "Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
The real issue is not that Republicans make scientific issues political. Democrats clearly do the same. The real issue is how so many people accept whatever this President and this Administration tells them, even though time after time it has been shown that so many things that they told us were simply not true. As Obama, Gruber, Rhodes and the rest have figured out - you can fool many people all of the time.
Gruber told us that the ACA passed because of its lack of transparency, and because of the "stupidity of the American voter." Gruber also told us how to really control costs - deny treatment. Gruber: "The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can't have something they want." But, "you can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it."
Or take global warming/climate change. You know, "it's settled." Like science is ever supposed to be settled. The White House loved telling us "97% of scientists agree." Except, it's not true. A 10/8/15 article in the National Review referred to a 2012 survey of 1862 people in the climate field. The American Meteorological Society conducted the survey and found that 51% of those surveyed agreed that human activity is the main cause of global warming. That is hardly 97%. But 23% said there was insufficient data to reach a conclusion, and 11% concluded warming was equally from natural causes as from human activity.
The article also told of a 2015 survey of 1868 scientists in the climate field. 30% said that less than half of global warming since 1951 is attributable to human activity or is of unknown causes. 97% agree? Not hardly. Or, how about the 1975 Newsweek article describing the possible beginning of a mini ice-age. The article described "a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." Reference was also made to the "bitter winters (in) much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900."
I was just asked why we Republicans have to make everything political, such as global warming. Really? Because it is political. Because many of those pushing the fear of global warming do, in fact, have an agenda. One professor at Cal State University, Northridge has an ebook entitled "Capitalism and Climate Change, the Science and Politics of Global Warming." The online introductory comments tell us that "the climate crisis is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced." But then we get the real agenda - the political agenda - "clear evidence and compelling arguments are presented to demonstrate the impossibility of adequately addressing the climate crisis within the framework of capitalism." How's that for a political take on global warming - it's all about getting rid of capitalism!
You see, for the left it's always about economics and politics. Gruber told us that we'd have to take money from the wealthier people to cover poorer people. Of course that is political - how do we redistribute goods and services in society? Some global warming advocates have openly told us that their goal is to redistribute wealth from wealthier countries to poorer countries. And the Cal State professor tells us we need to get rid of capitalism.
So, what's the latest? Ben Rhodes is the Deputy National Security Adviser in the Obama White House. In an interview with the New York Times, Rhodes said "we created an echo chamber." He explained that with regards to the Iran nuke deal, the Administration used/manipulated "experts" so that "they were saying things that validated what we had given them to say." We were also told that after a so-called moderate was elected President of Iran, Obama saw an opening that might make a deal possible. Except, it turns out that the negotiations actually began when the hardliner was still in office.
We know the mainstream media is overwhelmingly left-wing. As such, they have already been predisposed to simply write whatever the Obama Administration tells them. In addition, Rhodes tells us how easily he believes the press can be manipulated. "Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
The real issue is not that Republicans make scientific issues political. Democrats clearly do the same. The real issue is how so many people accept whatever this President and this Administration tells them, even though time after time it has been shown that so many things that they told us were simply not true. As Obama, Gruber, Rhodes and the rest have figured out - you can fool many people all of the time.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
A Few Words on the Presidential Election, Part II
The United States Department of Commerce has a Bureau of Economic Analysis. They tell us that the average GDP from 1959 through 2002 was 3.4%. From 1929 through 2012 the average GDP was 3.3% How about under Obama? Not once did the GDP hit the average of either period, or even 3.0% for that matter. (For those interested: 2009-2.8%, 2010-2.5%, 2011-1.8%, 2012-2.8%, 2013-1.5%, 2014-2.4%, 2015-2.4%. And the first quarter of 2016 started with a lackluster 0.5%.)
But Obama says unemployment is way down to 5%. Well, yes, if we do not count the millions who have given up looking and no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. Then, it would be more like 10%. But Obama says he created 14.4 million new jobs since 2010, but that does not even cover the 15.8 million people who entered the labor market during the same period. (Data from the 4/29/16 Investor"s Business Daily.)
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in their 4/29/16 editorial, we have had "the weakest economic expansion in the postwar era." Says the Journal: "Even the Great Depression saw a snap back to rapid growth from 1934-1936." More recently, there was a faster economic recovery after "the savings and loan collapse of the early 1990s."
In a sign of the low growth rate/chronic unemployment under liberal Democrat policies, middle-aged Americans are committing suicide at an increasingly disturbing rate. Writes Betsy McCaughey in the 4/27/16 IBD: "New Jersey used to have one of the lowest suicide rates in the nation, but it's shot up 13% in two years." Citing one suicide prevention source about that: "We've seen a wave of suicides that resulted from the financial crisis a little bit later than other parts of the country."
And, noting what should be obvious to everyone, McCaughey wrote: "It (the cause of the higher suicide rate) is not inequality, despite Bernie Sanders' rants. It's lack of growth and the Democratic Party's refusal to make growth a priority. People don't don't kill themselves because their neighbor has more money. They take their life when they can see no way to get a job, support their family and regain self-worth."
If Obama and the Democrats cared about economic growth and expansion and the creation of new jobs, we would not have the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and multiple other new taxes and regulations. But Hillary will follow in Obama's footsteps. She believes, apparently, that raising the minimum wage will actually create new jobs, rather than stifle job growth. And Hillary has told us that she wants to shutter the coal industry.
But Hillary did a great job as Secretary of State, didn't she? No, she did not. She pushed for the overthrow of Qaddafi, resulting in another failed state in the region, and allowing for the growth of radical Islamic terrorist groups. She pushed the "reset" with Russia. Russia then took over the Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine, and now threatens our military ships and planes with dangerous fly bys. When the US ambassador to Libya and other Americans were murdered by terrorists, she lied to the families and American people about some movie trailer being the cause. When caught in her lie when testifying before Congress, she gave us her famous: "What difference does it make?"
Then, of course, we have the email scandal (ignoring all the other scandals involving her and Bill). Obama, who again inappropriately stuck his nose into a pending criminal matter, recently said in an interview that he did not believe Hillary jeopardized national security. What a not so subtle message for his Attorney General. The FBI apparently has 147 agents working on the case. The Justice Department has granted immunity to the person on Hillary's staff who set up the private email server.
Hillary, like Obama and Bernie, wants to bring at least 100,000 Muslim refugees to the US. There will be little opportunity to vet them. So, I asked one liberal Jewish reader what Muslim country he would like to live in. Answer: none. I asked if he cares how many Muslims are brought here. Answer: yes. Finally, I asked if any country has been made safer for Jews as the Muslim population increases? Answer: no.
But, as the title to my 1/17/16 post indicates, the liberals have lost their instinct to survive. Will Obama have to pardon Hillary? Would an indictment or pardon deter liberal Democrats from voting for her? No more than the increasing anti-Semitism and hate crimes against Jews in the UK deter the liberals there from claiming that the problem is Islamophobia.
But Obama says unemployment is way down to 5%. Well, yes, if we do not count the millions who have given up looking and no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. Then, it would be more like 10%. But Obama says he created 14.4 million new jobs since 2010, but that does not even cover the 15.8 million people who entered the labor market during the same period. (Data from the 4/29/16 Investor"s Business Daily.)
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in their 4/29/16 editorial, we have had "the weakest economic expansion in the postwar era." Says the Journal: "Even the Great Depression saw a snap back to rapid growth from 1934-1936." More recently, there was a faster economic recovery after "the savings and loan collapse of the early 1990s."
In a sign of the low growth rate/chronic unemployment under liberal Democrat policies, middle-aged Americans are committing suicide at an increasingly disturbing rate. Writes Betsy McCaughey in the 4/27/16 IBD: "New Jersey used to have one of the lowest suicide rates in the nation, but it's shot up 13% in two years." Citing one suicide prevention source about that: "We've seen a wave of suicides that resulted from the financial crisis a little bit later than other parts of the country."
And, noting what should be obvious to everyone, McCaughey wrote: "It (the cause of the higher suicide rate) is not inequality, despite Bernie Sanders' rants. It's lack of growth and the Democratic Party's refusal to make growth a priority. People don't don't kill themselves because their neighbor has more money. They take their life when they can see no way to get a job, support their family and regain self-worth."
If Obama and the Democrats cared about economic growth and expansion and the creation of new jobs, we would not have the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and multiple other new taxes and regulations. But Hillary will follow in Obama's footsteps. She believes, apparently, that raising the minimum wage will actually create new jobs, rather than stifle job growth. And Hillary has told us that she wants to shutter the coal industry.
But Hillary did a great job as Secretary of State, didn't she? No, she did not. She pushed for the overthrow of Qaddafi, resulting in another failed state in the region, and allowing for the growth of radical Islamic terrorist groups. She pushed the "reset" with Russia. Russia then took over the Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine, and now threatens our military ships and planes with dangerous fly bys. When the US ambassador to Libya and other Americans were murdered by terrorists, she lied to the families and American people about some movie trailer being the cause. When caught in her lie when testifying before Congress, she gave us her famous: "What difference does it make?"
Then, of course, we have the email scandal (ignoring all the other scandals involving her and Bill). Obama, who again inappropriately stuck his nose into a pending criminal matter, recently said in an interview that he did not believe Hillary jeopardized national security. What a not so subtle message for his Attorney General. The FBI apparently has 147 agents working on the case. The Justice Department has granted immunity to the person on Hillary's staff who set up the private email server.
Hillary, like Obama and Bernie, wants to bring at least 100,000 Muslim refugees to the US. There will be little opportunity to vet them. So, I asked one liberal Jewish reader what Muslim country he would like to live in. Answer: none. I asked if he cares how many Muslims are brought here. Answer: yes. Finally, I asked if any country has been made safer for Jews as the Muslim population increases? Answer: no.
But, as the title to my 1/17/16 post indicates, the liberals have lost their instinct to survive. Will Obama have to pardon Hillary? Would an indictment or pardon deter liberal Democrats from voting for her? No more than the increasing anti-Semitism and hate crimes against Jews in the UK deter the liberals there from claiming that the problem is Islamophobia.
A Few Words on the Presidential Election, Part I
The Labour Party in the UK seems to be having a problem with anti-Semitism. (Bear with me and you will see a connection to our election.) Labour Party member, and former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, recently expressed his opinion that Hitler was a Zionist. Another Labour Party member posted on Facebook that "Israel is a terrorist state like ISIS." According to the Israeli ambassador to the UK, there are those on the left who are "in denial" about anti-Semitism. Labour is the left wing party in the UK.
Meanwhile, anti-Semitic hate crimes in Britain are up over the last two years, with a 50% increase in violent crimes. 2015 saw over a 25% increase from 2014 in anti-Semitic hate crimes; with over 1000 anti-Semitic incidents reported. One might think the Jews of the UK would be united against the increasing anti-Semitism. One would be wrong. 83 Jewish members and supporters of the Labour Party, in a letter to the Guardian, denied that there is a problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
Those 83 wrote in their letter: "As Jews, we are appalled that a serious issue is being used in this cynical and manipulative way, diverting attention from much more widespread examples of Islamophobia and xenophobia in the conservative and other parties." So you see, those on the left who are in denial about anti-Semitism in the UK includes many Jews. And isn't their letter reminiscent of the way the mainstream media in the US made Muslims the victims after the 9/11 attacks?
I am reminded of Obama's first campaign for President, when we learned about Rev. Wright. Fellow Jews were willing to make excuses for the hate speech - the anti-Israel hate speech - of Obama's Pastor and mentor. It was simply a non-issue for them. And now, it is happening again.
One of the main advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton has been Sidney Blumenthal. Sidney's son Max has written extensively, and negatively, about Israel. Sidney has not disavowed his son's writings; in fact, he sent sent many of those articles on to Hillary. Max has compared Israel to the Nazis, has said Jews should move out of Israel, and has compared the Israeli Defense Forces to the Nazi's SS. Hillary was consistently impressed by Max's writings, with comments such as "Pls congratulate Max for another impressive piece. He is so good."
But left leaning Jews here will make the same excuses for Hillary that they did for Obama, and that left-wing Jews make for the UK's Labour Party. In a 2012 speech, Hillary referred to Israel's "lack of generosity" and "lack of empathy" towards and for Palestinians. She took on the role "designated yeller" - at Netanyahu. (As an aside, I would bet no other world leader had a "designated yeller" assigned by Obama.) In one phone call with Netanyahu, Hillary yelled at him for 45 minutes because Israel had the audacity to build in their capital city of Jerusalem.
Bernie Sanders is no better. He accused Israel of slaughtering 10,000 civilians in the last war with Hamas in 2014. He said Israel's military response to non-stop rocket fire from Gaza was "disproportionate," meaning Israelis should do nothing to defend themselves. The UN, and even Hamas, put the number of civilian casualties at between 1400 and 1500. Israel claims half of those were Hamas fighters in civilian clothes. But Bernie is always willing to think the worst of Israel.
Recently, 83 US Senators (51 Republicans and 32 Democrats) signed off on a letter to the Obama Administration in which they were seeking an increase in military aid to Israel, as part of a new 10 year memorandum of understanding. Bernie did not sign that letter. Bernie appointed Simone Zimmerman as his Jewish outreach coordinator. Here are a few words from Zimmerman: "Bibi Netanyahu is an arrogant, deceptive, cynical, manipulative asshole...Fuck you, Bibi...you sanctioned the murder of over 2000 people this summer." Zimmerman was referring to the war with Hamas, and demonstrating how she, also, does not believe Israel had the right to defend itself against the constant rockets launched from Gaza.
But, maybe, liberal Jews and the left in general are happy with Obama's economic leadership; policies that Hillary will follow and magnify. Let's take a look - in Part II.
Meanwhile, anti-Semitic hate crimes in Britain are up over the last two years, with a 50% increase in violent crimes. 2015 saw over a 25% increase from 2014 in anti-Semitic hate crimes; with over 1000 anti-Semitic incidents reported. One might think the Jews of the UK would be united against the increasing anti-Semitism. One would be wrong. 83 Jewish members and supporters of the Labour Party, in a letter to the Guardian, denied that there is a problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
Those 83 wrote in their letter: "As Jews, we are appalled that a serious issue is being used in this cynical and manipulative way, diverting attention from much more widespread examples of Islamophobia and xenophobia in the conservative and other parties." So you see, those on the left who are in denial about anti-Semitism in the UK includes many Jews. And isn't their letter reminiscent of the way the mainstream media in the US made Muslims the victims after the 9/11 attacks?
I am reminded of Obama's first campaign for President, when we learned about Rev. Wright. Fellow Jews were willing to make excuses for the hate speech - the anti-Israel hate speech - of Obama's Pastor and mentor. It was simply a non-issue for them. And now, it is happening again.
One of the main advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton has been Sidney Blumenthal. Sidney's son Max has written extensively, and negatively, about Israel. Sidney has not disavowed his son's writings; in fact, he sent sent many of those articles on to Hillary. Max has compared Israel to the Nazis, has said Jews should move out of Israel, and has compared the Israeli Defense Forces to the Nazi's SS. Hillary was consistently impressed by Max's writings, with comments such as "Pls congratulate Max for another impressive piece. He is so good."
But left leaning Jews here will make the same excuses for Hillary that they did for Obama, and that left-wing Jews make for the UK's Labour Party. In a 2012 speech, Hillary referred to Israel's "lack of generosity" and "lack of empathy" towards and for Palestinians. She took on the role "designated yeller" - at Netanyahu. (As an aside, I would bet no other world leader had a "designated yeller" assigned by Obama.) In one phone call with Netanyahu, Hillary yelled at him for 45 minutes because Israel had the audacity to build in their capital city of Jerusalem.
Bernie Sanders is no better. He accused Israel of slaughtering 10,000 civilians in the last war with Hamas in 2014. He said Israel's military response to non-stop rocket fire from Gaza was "disproportionate," meaning Israelis should do nothing to defend themselves. The UN, and even Hamas, put the number of civilian casualties at between 1400 and 1500. Israel claims half of those were Hamas fighters in civilian clothes. But Bernie is always willing to think the worst of Israel.
Recently, 83 US Senators (51 Republicans and 32 Democrats) signed off on a letter to the Obama Administration in which they were seeking an increase in military aid to Israel, as part of a new 10 year memorandum of understanding. Bernie did not sign that letter. Bernie appointed Simone Zimmerman as his Jewish outreach coordinator. Here are a few words from Zimmerman: "Bibi Netanyahu is an arrogant, deceptive, cynical, manipulative asshole...Fuck you, Bibi...you sanctioned the murder of over 2000 people this summer." Zimmerman was referring to the war with Hamas, and demonstrating how she, also, does not believe Israel had the right to defend itself against the constant rockets launched from Gaza.
But, maybe, liberal Jews and the left in general are happy with Obama's economic leadership; policies that Hillary will follow and magnify. Let's take a look - in Part II.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Be Careful What You Say
The 4/8/16 Wall Street Journal reports on a story out of Marquette University. As we know, universities are no longer bastions of free speech. A teaching assistant told her class that same sex marriage was no longer subject to debate, and that "everyone agrees on this." One student objected, but to no avail. Rather, he was told that "there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions..."
When the student continued to protest his right to express a contrary opinion, he was told: "...you can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated." The problem, of course, is who gets to decide which comments are homophobic, racist or sexist. The other problem is that this TA is essentially telling students that "offensive" speech is not to be tolerated. However, the First Amendment says otherwise. The student then protested to a professor, who had the misfortune of speaking the truth - rather than adhering to the left-wing party line.
The professor wrote about the incident on his blog, asserting that the teaching assistant used "...a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed 'offensive' and need to be shut up." The teaching assistant subsequently received emails which were described as "vicious" in nature. The professor has been suspended by the Dean, being told he could not return until he acknowledged his behavior was "reckless," and apologized to the teaching assistant.
Reckless? The professor did use the TA's name in his blog. But he also told the truth about the TA's politically correct, anti-free speech attitude toward teaching. The TA should be called out for the "everything" is settled approach to teaching. Every left-wing issue is settled: climate change, gay marriage, open borders, a "woman's right to choose." There can be no disputing the left-wing agenda, making the university today simply another element of the left's propaganda machine, along with the entertainment and news media.
In the same edition of the WSJ was a letter to the editor from a retired Brigadier General from the USAF. This Brigadier General sought a teaching position at an Ivy League school. After meeting with the school president, some deans and other staff, the Brig. Gen. was offered a teaching position. A short time later the faculty senate reversed the offer, and the Brig. Gen. was advised "there was no place on a liberal university faculty for a former senior military officer." Imagine that; a man who served his country, allowing these ivory tower prima donnas to maintain their freedoms, and their facade of separation from the country that gives them so much, was not deemed worthy enough to teach alongside them.
Yet another letter to the editor in the same edition of the WSJ said it best in describing what the left thinks of the right: "What isn't consistent with the stated aims of higher education are the goals of conservatives and libertarians, which are not in the interest of the vast majority of humankind, nor do they have a moral or ethical component." How many leftists actually believe this drivel? Conservatives are neither moral nor ethical? Not a single conservative value or policy benefits humankind? Not free speech, not freedom of religion, not capitalism - which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history. Sadly, this writer may have little to fear, as we see below.
Two law professors at UC Irvine, Howard Gillman and Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an opinion piece in the 3/31/16 LA Times, discussing their freshman seminar on free speech on college campuses. Wrote the two professors: "From the beginning of our course, we were surprised by the often unanimous willingness of our students to support efforts to restrict and punish a wide range of expression." But should they have been surprised by the unanimity against dissent; against "offensive" speech? Teens are constantly exposed to a media which is filled with the ideas expressed in the above paragraph. We know that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal, perhaps the same applies to high school teachers.
These two professors concluded that they were able to teach some of their students the significance of free speech, while some were unmoved in their willingness to shut down "offensive" speech. What is the real lesson? Given the total inundation of liberal ideology to which our youth are subjected, it seems to me that a significant amount of deprogramming is needed to counteract the pervasive brainwashing.
When the student continued to protest his right to express a contrary opinion, he was told: "...you can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated." The problem, of course, is who gets to decide which comments are homophobic, racist or sexist. The other problem is that this TA is essentially telling students that "offensive" speech is not to be tolerated. However, the First Amendment says otherwise. The student then protested to a professor, who had the misfortune of speaking the truth - rather than adhering to the left-wing party line.
The professor wrote about the incident on his blog, asserting that the teaching assistant used "...a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed 'offensive' and need to be shut up." The teaching assistant subsequently received emails which were described as "vicious" in nature. The professor has been suspended by the Dean, being told he could not return until he acknowledged his behavior was "reckless," and apologized to the teaching assistant.
Reckless? The professor did use the TA's name in his blog. But he also told the truth about the TA's politically correct, anti-free speech attitude toward teaching. The TA should be called out for the "everything" is settled approach to teaching. Every left-wing issue is settled: climate change, gay marriage, open borders, a "woman's right to choose." There can be no disputing the left-wing agenda, making the university today simply another element of the left's propaganda machine, along with the entertainment and news media.
In the same edition of the WSJ was a letter to the editor from a retired Brigadier General from the USAF. This Brigadier General sought a teaching position at an Ivy League school. After meeting with the school president, some deans and other staff, the Brig. Gen. was offered a teaching position. A short time later the faculty senate reversed the offer, and the Brig. Gen. was advised "there was no place on a liberal university faculty for a former senior military officer." Imagine that; a man who served his country, allowing these ivory tower prima donnas to maintain their freedoms, and their facade of separation from the country that gives them so much, was not deemed worthy enough to teach alongside them.
Yet another letter to the editor in the same edition of the WSJ said it best in describing what the left thinks of the right: "What isn't consistent with the stated aims of higher education are the goals of conservatives and libertarians, which are not in the interest of the vast majority of humankind, nor do they have a moral or ethical component." How many leftists actually believe this drivel? Conservatives are neither moral nor ethical? Not a single conservative value or policy benefits humankind? Not free speech, not freedom of religion, not capitalism - which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history. Sadly, this writer may have little to fear, as we see below.
Two law professors at UC Irvine, Howard Gillman and Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an opinion piece in the 3/31/16 LA Times, discussing their freshman seminar on free speech on college campuses. Wrote the two professors: "From the beginning of our course, we were surprised by the often unanimous willingness of our students to support efforts to restrict and punish a wide range of expression." But should they have been surprised by the unanimity against dissent; against "offensive" speech? Teens are constantly exposed to a media which is filled with the ideas expressed in the above paragraph. We know that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal, perhaps the same applies to high school teachers.
These two professors concluded that they were able to teach some of their students the significance of free speech, while some were unmoved in their willingness to shut down "offensive" speech. What is the real lesson? Given the total inundation of liberal ideology to which our youth are subjected, it seems to me that a significant amount of deprogramming is needed to counteract the pervasive brainwashing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)