In a sad story out of Los Angeles, we learned that an LA City Attorney, 60 years of age, shot and killed his 60 year old wife and 19 year old son. Thankfully, his 25 year old daughter escaped. Then I read a Facebook post by the sister of the deceased wife. I had to reread it a couple of times. "You never think this is going to happen to your immediate family. Still in shock, but completely heartbroken about losing my dear sister Sandy, nephew Michael and brother-in-law Eric to gun violence today..." What? Eric murdered your sister and nephew, and you put him in the same sentence, and make it about gun violence? No moral judgment about your now dead brother-in-law's horrific act of murder. No, the guns did it. I would bet this woman could make a moral judgment about second-hand smoke.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal declared a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance to be illegal. The ordinance forbid women from appearing topless in public. The Court's rationale is indicative of leftist thinking. They said the ordinance "discriminated against women and that it reinforced 'negative stereotypes depicting women's breasts, but not men's breasts, as sex objects.'" I get it - men's breasts are the same as women's, because there is no difference between men and women. I never needed an ordinance to tell me that a woman's breasts are sex objects. I bet I knew that by age 12. This is a perfect example of my oft repeated truism that the left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (while conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). On the other hand, my next blog post will likely be from Fort Collins.
Here's a good one out of New York City. The Commission on Human Rights told residents they may be fined up to $250,000 for the offense of "threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency," because such acts constitute unlawful discrimination. Apparently, this rule provides that the fine shall be paid to the person making the complaint. That won't encourage abuse. And the First Amendment? What's that? The same commission previously barred employers and landlords from the use of gender pronouns if different from the preferred pronoun of the employee or tenant.
Here's a pleasant surprise. The Jewish Press reported on a Siena College poll. It turns out that only 4% of New York Jews support Bernie Sanders for President. Bernie does little to show his Judaism. He constantly criticizes Israel. He named Linda Sarsour to have some position in his campaign. He has supported the anti-Semites in Congress. Apparently, it has all caught up with him. In another interesting result from the poll, 44% of New York Jews have a favorable view of Trump (although only 33% say they will vote for him). Nevertheless, that favorability number is higher than for whites in general in New York.
In an Op-Ed in the 10/6/19 New York Times, is a piece by Andrew Marantz with this headline: "Free Speech is Killing Us." His concern has to do with Trump's use of the media, and the more serious issue of social media which may encourage some to commit acts of violence. Marantz is also concerned with speech "that's designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism." After 3 years of the left telling us that democracy is dead under Trump, I've yet to see it or experience it. The First Amendment, as interpreted, does allow for certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And, Marantz, on staff at "The New Yorker," acknowledges that certain content may be even be banned - libel, incitement to violence and child pornography, for examples. Marantz: "We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks." But can we really protect unpopular speech from the government? See two paragraphs above re: the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
September 17 was Constitution Day, the Constitution having been ratified on September 17, 1787. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that 22% of Americans were unable to name even one branch of government. 25% named one branch, 14% named two branches and 39% named all three branches of government. The Center for American Progress reports that only nine states plus Washington, D.C., have a year long mandatory class on civics for their high school students. (D.C. plus Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Virginia and Maryland.) I am confident that many of those unable to name a single branch of government would be able to tell us all about their favorite celebrities.
And finally, there was a rather upsetting story out of Texas, when a black man sitting in his own apartment and minding his own business was shot and killed by a white, female police officer. She was off duty and claimed that she believed she walking into her own apartment with an intruder inside. As I often do on police matters, I went to my friend, a retired cop. He opined that the female officer had many options short of discharging her weapon, starting with calling for back-up. She would also have had other non-lethal weapons on her, such as a taser and a baton. My friend: "I was proud to wear the uniform, but never thought it gave me a pass to be immoral, unethical or placed me above the people I served." Well said; it's an approach by which all of us could live.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
Sunday, September 15, 2019
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part II
Bring back the 1950's blacklist? Debra Messing and Eric McCormack star/starred (I don't know, I never watched it) in the TV series "Will & Grace." McCormack Tweeted: "Hey @THR (The Hollywood Reporter), kindly report on everyone attending this event (a Trump fundraiser in Hollywood), so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with. Thx." Messing added: "Please print a list of all attendees." They were rebuked by none other than Whoopi Goldberg, who had to remind them of the blacklisting of the 1950s. "...a lot of really good people were accused of stuff. Nobody cared whether it was true or not. They were accused. And they lost their right to work...In this country, people can vote for who they want to." The two actors then backpedaled, claiming they just wanted transparency, and it had nothing to do with keeping people from working. Right - "so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with." Got it.
Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.
Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."
Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?
Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.
The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.
And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.
What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?
Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.
Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.
Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."
Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?
Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.
The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.
And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.
What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?
Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part I
Where's the evil? The New York Times put up this Tweet, before taking it down under pressure: "Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down." Those evil airplanes! Do not blame the perpetrators, who were radical Muslims who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. No, 9/11 was about planes taking down buildings. The same "analysis" is used by the Left when it comes to guns. The guns do the killing, not the evil perpetrators. Where's the call to ban airplanes? Never mind; the Green New Deal proposes just that.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
My letter to the Los Angeles Times
The Sunday, August 25,2019, Los Angeles Times front page lead story was titled "Conservative radio host is an internet smash." The subheadline is "His online 'university' makes hugely popular videos that aim to indoctrinate the right." Dennis Prager has a radio show based out of Los Angeles. He and Allen Estrin founded Prager University for the purpose of, as Prager often says, "teaching what isn't taught" in schools and universities. What follows is my letter to the Times about their one-sided coverage of Prager U.
"Your article on Prager U is so one-sided and biased, it is why the President refers to the mainstream media as "fake news." Let's start with your subheadline that Prager's aim is to"indoctrinate" the right. The assertion of "indoctrination" is repeated in the second column on page one, and is repeated yet again in the very first paragraph on page eleven where the story continues. You then go on to assert that Prager's messages are "polarizing."
This article is a perfect example of why Prager U is needed, and how you in the media, in Hollywood and in academia live in such a left-wing bubble that you are unable to recognize your own biases. Rather, you believe "your" truth is "the" truth. You are unable to even see the "indoctrination" perpetrated by you in the media and by Hollywood and by academia. Yet, you say Prager and Adam Carolla are releasing a documentary, "No Safe Spaces," about the "intolerance for conservatives on college campuses." You say it is one of their favorite subjects. Why does it not bother the Times that conservative views are not permitted in academia? Shouldn't the lack of tolerance for diverse viewpoints at colleges and universities be one of the Times' favorite subjects?
How ironic that you are able to quote one left-wing source after the next, yet, in this lengthy hit piece you were unable to find a single subscriber to Prager U in order to seek another opinion. You acknowledge that Prager U has had over 2 billion views - but you could not locate a single individual to ask what he or she thought of the videos.
You quote a UCLA professor who states that Prager U "is much more effective than the version of this content available on the liberal side." You wonder why that might be? Everywhere in society we are inundated with left-wing voices and talking points. Liberals/leftists need only read the LA Times or NY Times, or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC for the left-wing view of issues. They need only attend left-leaning (most) colleges and universities. However, people who want to hear another side of the issues - the conservative side - need to seek it out.
You close with an assertion that Prager has a "combative view of ideological debate." I have listened to his radio show for decades. Not only is Prager not combative with callers, he is the most likely, of the various talk show hosts, to allow callers to make their points without interruption.
The fact that you chose to make this totally biased and one-sided story about Prager U your front page lead story in the Sunday paper speaks volumes about your biases - and your inability to recognize them. This should have been an Op-Ed."
"Your article on Prager U is so one-sided and biased, it is why the President refers to the mainstream media as "fake news." Let's start with your subheadline that Prager's aim is to"indoctrinate" the right. The assertion of "indoctrination" is repeated in the second column on page one, and is repeated yet again in the very first paragraph on page eleven where the story continues. You then go on to assert that Prager's messages are "polarizing."
This article is a perfect example of why Prager U is needed, and how you in the media, in Hollywood and in academia live in such a left-wing bubble that you are unable to recognize your own biases. Rather, you believe "your" truth is "the" truth. You are unable to even see the "indoctrination" perpetrated by you in the media and by Hollywood and by academia. Yet, you say Prager and Adam Carolla are releasing a documentary, "No Safe Spaces," about the "intolerance for conservatives on college campuses." You say it is one of their favorite subjects. Why does it not bother the Times that conservative views are not permitted in academia? Shouldn't the lack of tolerance for diverse viewpoints at colleges and universities be one of the Times' favorite subjects?
How ironic that you are able to quote one left-wing source after the next, yet, in this lengthy hit piece you were unable to find a single subscriber to Prager U in order to seek another opinion. You acknowledge that Prager U has had over 2 billion views - but you could not locate a single individual to ask what he or she thought of the videos.
You quote a UCLA professor who states that Prager U "is much more effective than the version of this content available on the liberal side." You wonder why that might be? Everywhere in society we are inundated with left-wing voices and talking points. Liberals/leftists need only read the LA Times or NY Times, or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC for the left-wing view of issues. They need only attend left-leaning (most) colleges and universities. However, people who want to hear another side of the issues - the conservative side - need to seek it out.
You close with an assertion that Prager has a "combative view of ideological debate." I have listened to his radio show for decades. Not only is Prager not combative with callers, he is the most likely, of the various talk show hosts, to allow callers to make their points without interruption.
The fact that you chose to make this totally biased and one-sided story about Prager U your front page lead story in the Sunday paper speaks volumes about your biases - and your inability to recognize them. This should have been an Op-Ed."
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Out of Control California
Let's be honest. California Governor Gavin Newsom never really cared much about the law. After all, when he was Mayor of San Francisco, he ordered the city to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, even though state law at the time declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. Newsom's disregard for the law ended when the state Supreme Court put an end to it. Therefore, I suppose we should not be surprised at Newsom's attempted end run around the US Constitution. Newsom signed into law a bill that prevented any presidential candidate from getting on the ballot in California's primary election (now in March, 2020) unless the candidate disclosed the last five years of their tax returns by November 26, 2019. Obviously, the super-majority Democrat legislature and Democrat Newsom were targeting President Trump, who has not released his tax returns.
The US Constitution sets out three requirements for eligibility to be president - a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident in the United States. In vetoing similar legislation, prior Democrat Governor Jerry Brown opined that such a law may be unconstitutional. Then he added: "Second, it sets a 'slippery slope' precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?" To which I would add, the requirements would likely vary from state to state, with each state determining the requirements to be president. This law, intended to deny Trump access to California's delegates to the Republican Party convention, is clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an Op-Ed in the 8/1/19 LA Times explaining why he thought the law was Constitutional. First, he discusses why the voting public might be interested in a candidate's tax returns. No doubt many would. But, as Jerry Brown explained, there are many things the public might want to know about a presidential candidate. Then, Chemerinsky acknowledges that most cases dealing with the issue have addressed access to the ballot for state and local elections. He then asserts that the "constitutional principles are the same" for the office of President. That is a rather odd conclusion. Clearly, states can set forth their own requirements for eligibility for state and local offices, assuming they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth or political party affiliation. Judicial Watch and several individuals have already filed suit to block this law. I am confident that this law will be struck down by the Courts.
It is also generally not a good idea to so obviously target a specific individual - Trump. When Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting a President to two terms after FDR's election four times, they put a provision in the Amendment specifically excluding the person holding the office of President when the Article was proposed. That person was Harry Truman. California could have made their law effective after the 2020 election. But, as they were targeting Trump, that would not do. Whether or not Newsom seriously expects the law to survive a court challenge, it is clear that this is his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024.
California also has a bill proposing that a class in "ethnic studies" be required for high school graduation. The devil, as they say, is in the details; and in this case the details are made up of a bunch of left-wing propaganda. In their 8/4/19 editorial, even the LA Times recognized that the current draft proposal "is an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements. It's hard to wade through all the references to hxrstory and womxn and misogynoir and cisheteropatriarchy." Whew! The Wall Street Journal had a 7/30/19 Op-Ed telling us that the course defines itself as "the interdisciplinary study of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity with an emphasis on experiences of people of color in the United States."
Most Jewish groups opposed the model curriculum as being anti-Jewish. After all, the course would include discussions of "Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, dehumanization, microaggression and the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement..." (As noted in the Jewish Journal of LA.) Curiously, there is no mention of anti-Semitism, nor, apparently of Judaism. One might think this odd as anti-Semitism is growing, and we are not terribly far removed from the shooting at the synagogue in Poway, California.
Capitalism is not looked on too fondly. Rather, capitalism fares no better than racism, white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism - all of which are described as a "form of power and oppression." Students would then be encouraged to be "agents of change, social justice organizers and advocates." So, first brainwash the students with leftist ideology, and then send them out into the world to become agents of "change."
After much protest by Jewish groups and others, the state Board of Education announced that they would "substantially redesign" the course program. But so what? I already know enough that I would never send my kids to public school today if they were young. After all, how does such a curriculum even get proposed? Instead of "Ethnic Studies," the redesigned class should be called "We Will teach You to Hate America, Hate Capitalism, Hate Jews and Israel, and Of Course, Hate White People."
The US Constitution sets out three requirements for eligibility to be president - a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident in the United States. In vetoing similar legislation, prior Democrat Governor Jerry Brown opined that such a law may be unconstitutional. Then he added: "Second, it sets a 'slippery slope' precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?" To which I would add, the requirements would likely vary from state to state, with each state determining the requirements to be president. This law, intended to deny Trump access to California's delegates to the Republican Party convention, is clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an Op-Ed in the 8/1/19 LA Times explaining why he thought the law was Constitutional. First, he discusses why the voting public might be interested in a candidate's tax returns. No doubt many would. But, as Jerry Brown explained, there are many things the public might want to know about a presidential candidate. Then, Chemerinsky acknowledges that most cases dealing with the issue have addressed access to the ballot for state and local elections. He then asserts that the "constitutional principles are the same" for the office of President. That is a rather odd conclusion. Clearly, states can set forth their own requirements for eligibility for state and local offices, assuming they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth or political party affiliation. Judicial Watch and several individuals have already filed suit to block this law. I am confident that this law will be struck down by the Courts.
It is also generally not a good idea to so obviously target a specific individual - Trump. When Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting a President to two terms after FDR's election four times, they put a provision in the Amendment specifically excluding the person holding the office of President when the Article was proposed. That person was Harry Truman. California could have made their law effective after the 2020 election. But, as they were targeting Trump, that would not do. Whether or not Newsom seriously expects the law to survive a court challenge, it is clear that this is his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024.
California also has a bill proposing that a class in "ethnic studies" be required for high school graduation. The devil, as they say, is in the details; and in this case the details are made up of a bunch of left-wing propaganda. In their 8/4/19 editorial, even the LA Times recognized that the current draft proposal "is an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements. It's hard to wade through all the references to hxrstory and womxn and misogynoir and cisheteropatriarchy." Whew! The Wall Street Journal had a 7/30/19 Op-Ed telling us that the course defines itself as "the interdisciplinary study of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity with an emphasis on experiences of people of color in the United States."
Most Jewish groups opposed the model curriculum as being anti-Jewish. After all, the course would include discussions of "Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, dehumanization, microaggression and the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement..." (As noted in the Jewish Journal of LA.) Curiously, there is no mention of anti-Semitism, nor, apparently of Judaism. One might think this odd as anti-Semitism is growing, and we are not terribly far removed from the shooting at the synagogue in Poway, California.
Capitalism is not looked on too fondly. Rather, capitalism fares no better than racism, white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism - all of which are described as a "form of power and oppression." Students would then be encouraged to be "agents of change, social justice organizers and advocates." So, first brainwash the students with leftist ideology, and then send them out into the world to become agents of "change."
After much protest by Jewish groups and others, the state Board of Education announced that they would "substantially redesign" the course program. But so what? I already know enough that I would never send my kids to public school today if they were young. After all, how does such a curriculum even get proposed? Instead of "Ethnic Studies," the redesigned class should be called "We Will teach You to Hate America, Hate Capitalism, Hate Jews and Israel, and Of Course, Hate White People."
Trump and Netanyahu and Omar and Tlaib
It did not begin with Trump's Tweet: "It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds." It began earlier this month when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accompanied 40 other Democratic members of Congress to Israel. These Congress members were able to meet with Netanyahu, opposition leader Benny Gantz, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. That trip was sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, which is an affiliate of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), a pro-Israel lobbying group. As AIPAC seeks bipartisan support in Congress for Israel, and as they believe in a two-state solution, there was neither a desire nor attempt to prevent the Congress members from meeting with Palestinians. Nevertheless, left-wing groups pressured these Democrats not to go.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Racism, Racism, Everywhere is Racism
(I need to preface this post by stating the obvious, lest I be accused of racism. Yes, racism exists. Yes, judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character is both wrong and morally repugnant. But what the Left has done with the terms "racist" and "racism" is comparable to what the boy who cried wolf did to the fear of wolves. Let's take a look.)
For many on the Left, if you simply voted for Donald Trump for president you are automatically a racist. That makes 63 million Americans racists. One actress, Ellen Pompeo, commented on the fact that Kamala Harris seemed to be focusing most of her attacks on Joe Biden. Pompeo commented on that with this: "Because she is overconfident and believes he is her only competitor." Perhaps one of my readers can educate me about why that is a racist comment. Yet, that is what many on social media claimed. Said one person: "Black women are allowed only a certain amount of confidence. Must always yield to whatever white man is around." Make a note to add "overconfident" to go along with the "N" word and other racial slurs.
Of course, President Trump is always accused of racism. The latest accusations were in connection with his feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Trump was unhappy with Cummings' treatment of the Homeland Security Secretary during the Secretary's Congressional testimony. Trump then accused Cummings, who is black, and a civil rights icon to many, of being a "brutal bully." He referred to Cummings' district as being a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess"...and "far worse and more dangerous than the Southern border." For these comments, Trump was condemned, by many Democratic politicians and left-wing commentators, as being a racist.
But what about Bernie Sanders? During an earlier visit to Baltimore, Sanders made this remark: "Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you're in a wealthy nation. You would think that you were in a Third World country." Comparing parts of Baltimore to a Third World country was apparently not racist, allowing Bernie to criticize Trump for his alleged racism.
How about this? The former black Mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, while walking around one of Baltimore's blighted neighborhoods, was shocked by what she saw and smelled. "What the hell? We should just take all this shit down...whoa, you can smell the rats...whew, Jesus...oh my G-d, you can smell the dead animals." But not racist, because Trump did not say that. But imagine if he did.
Then we have this comment from 1998 by none other than Elijah Cummings: "This morning I left my community of Baltimore, a drug infested area where a lot of the drugs we're talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children..." But not racist, because Trump did not say it.
In a July 31 Op-Ed in The New York Times, Steve Phillips writes "Make Trump's Racism an Issue," referring to the 2020 election. Says Phillips: "In every presidential election for the past 50 years, a majority of white voters have voted against the Democrat, and the overwhelming majority of people of color have sided with the party's nominee." Assuming those numbers to be accurate, I am not surprised. Democrats have been using "identity politics" for quite some time; and have also promised "free" stuff to garner votes. Identity politics is aimed at minority groups. It tells those minority voters that they are all victims - often of white society. You want divisive? Then keep playing identity politics.
In Charles Blow's July 22 Op-Ed in The New York Times, "Denying Racism Supports It," he was surprised by the findings in a USA Today/Ipsos poll, published July 17. Apparently, "more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racist do so 'in bad faith,' compared with those who do not believe it." Blow concludes "this all contributes to whittling away at the reality of racism itself..." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that people are tired of hearing the boy cry wolf.
For many on the Left, if you simply voted for Donald Trump for president you are automatically a racist. That makes 63 million Americans racists. One actress, Ellen Pompeo, commented on the fact that Kamala Harris seemed to be focusing most of her attacks on Joe Biden. Pompeo commented on that with this: "Because she is overconfident and believes he is her only competitor." Perhaps one of my readers can educate me about why that is a racist comment. Yet, that is what many on social media claimed. Said one person: "Black women are allowed only a certain amount of confidence. Must always yield to whatever white man is around." Make a note to add "overconfident" to go along with the "N" word and other racial slurs.
Of course, President Trump is always accused of racism. The latest accusations were in connection with his feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Trump was unhappy with Cummings' treatment of the Homeland Security Secretary during the Secretary's Congressional testimony. Trump then accused Cummings, who is black, and a civil rights icon to many, of being a "brutal bully." He referred to Cummings' district as being a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess"...and "far worse and more dangerous than the Southern border." For these comments, Trump was condemned, by many Democratic politicians and left-wing commentators, as being a racist.
But what about Bernie Sanders? During an earlier visit to Baltimore, Sanders made this remark: "Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you're in a wealthy nation. You would think that you were in a Third World country." Comparing parts of Baltimore to a Third World country was apparently not racist, allowing Bernie to criticize Trump for his alleged racism.
How about this? The former black Mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, while walking around one of Baltimore's blighted neighborhoods, was shocked by what she saw and smelled. "What the hell? We should just take all this shit down...whoa, you can smell the rats...whew, Jesus...oh my G-d, you can smell the dead animals." But not racist, because Trump did not say that. But imagine if he did.
Then we have this comment from 1998 by none other than Elijah Cummings: "This morning I left my community of Baltimore, a drug infested area where a lot of the drugs we're talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children..." But not racist, because Trump did not say it.
In a July 31 Op-Ed in The New York Times, Steve Phillips writes "Make Trump's Racism an Issue," referring to the 2020 election. Says Phillips: "In every presidential election for the past 50 years, a majority of white voters have voted against the Democrat, and the overwhelming majority of people of color have sided with the party's nominee." Assuming those numbers to be accurate, I am not surprised. Democrats have been using "identity politics" for quite some time; and have also promised "free" stuff to garner votes. Identity politics is aimed at minority groups. It tells those minority voters that they are all victims - often of white society. You want divisive? Then keep playing identity politics.
In Charles Blow's July 22 Op-Ed in The New York Times, "Denying Racism Supports It," he was surprised by the findings in a USA Today/Ipsos poll, published July 17. Apparently, "more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racist do so 'in bad faith,' compared with those who do not believe it." Blow concludes "this all contributes to whittling away at the reality of racism itself..." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that people are tired of hearing the boy cry wolf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)