Displaying posts published in

February 2021

On Free Speech at Stanford:Scott Atlas, Niall Ferguson, and Victor Davis Hanson *****

https://stanfordreview.org/atlas-ferguson-hanson-stanford-free-speech/

What is the purpose of academic freedom?

Is it to allow all kinds of ideas to be expressed and explored, protecting even speech that people in the past considered heretical—protecting free expression that some people today would like to “cancel”? Or is it to allow co-workers in the ideological minority to be personally and selectively disparaged with impunity?

The answer for some faculty at Stanford University would appear to be the latter.

In a recent meeting of the Stanford Faculty Senate, four professors (Joshua Landy, Stephen Monismith, David Palumbo-Liu and David Spiegel) presented and then subsequently published a farrago of falsehoods directed against various fellows of the Hoover Institution. Their complaint was, first, that the Hoover fellows’ views were unapologetically conservative and, second, that they appeared antithetical to the majority of those of the Stanford community—and were therefore properly subject to some sort of institutional and personal censure.

Our faculty accusers failed to achieve both their overt and their implicit goals—creating a faculty-controlled committee to investigate Hoover and intimidating us into silence. Some respected faculty members, including the President, the Provost, and the former Provost all forcefully spoke up for academic freedom in general and defended Hoover in particular. They should be congratulated for doing so in these ideologically polarized times.

Nevertheless, our faculty accusers still succeeded in maligning us as individuals. The impression was left even by the President that we might have “behaved inappropriately” or “spoken untruths.” Unfortunately, this is not the first time such use has been made of the Senate. Indeed, it has happened repeatedly in recent years, for example in February 2019.

Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2021 Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger,

1. Purim’s historical background.  The 586 BCE destruction of the 1st Jewish Temple and the expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria – by the Babylonian Emperor, Nebuchadnezzar – triggered a wave of Jewish emigration to Babylon and Persia.  The latter replaced Babylon as the leading regional power.  In 538 BCE, Xerxes the Great, Persia’s King Ahasuerus, the successor of Darius the Great, proclaimed his support for the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple and the resurrection of national Jewish life in the Land of Israel, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish Homeland.  In 499-449 BCE, Ahasuerus established a coalition of countries – from India to Ethiopia – which launched the Greco-Persian Wars, attempting to expand the Persian Empire westward. However, Persia was resoundingly defeated (e.g., the 490 BCE and 480 BCE battles of Marathon and Salamis), and Ahasuerus’ authority in Persia was gravely eroded.

2. Purim is a Jewish national liberation holiday – just like Passover and Chanukah – which commemorates the transformation of the Jewish people from subjugation to liberty. It is celebrated seven days following the birth and death date of Moses, who is the role model of liberty, leadership and humility.

Purim is celebrated, annually, at a time when the relatively cold and stormy winter shifts into the relatively warm and pleasant spring.

Why is Biden going back to the Iran deal? By David Isaac

https://worldisraelnews.com/
Why would Biden go back to the Iran deal? Frankly, we’re baffled.

It didn’t make sense in 2015 when Obama did it. It makes even less sense in 2021. The agreement is a proven disaster, its failings exposed, its critics vindicated.

As Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi write in the January Atlantic: “The agreement did not shut down a single nuclear facility or destroy a single centrifuge.

The ease and speed with which Iran has resumed producing large amounts of more highly enriched uranium – doing so at a time of its own choosing – illustrates the danger of leaving the regime with these capabilities.”

Nor did the deal stop Iran from developing advanced centrifuges and ballistic missiles. Nor did it address the Koran-infused ayatollahs’ malignant designs. (Iran’s parliament even debated a bill to set a time limit of 20 years for wiping out Israel.)

All the deal did was limit Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, and that for 10 or so years. That’s not a prohibition, that’s a countdown.

As John Bolton summed it up in The Room Where It Happened: “The deal was badly conceived, abominably negotiated and drafted, and entirely advantageous to Iran: unenforceable, unverifiable, and inadequate in duration and scope. Although purportedly resolving the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, the deal did no such thing.”

If nuclear bombs were skyscrapers, it would be like OK’ing the foundation, superstructure and interior, including the paint – and then telling the builder to hold off on flipping on the electricity until 2026. And here’s $150 million in cash to help you pass the time.

5 Times Anthony Fauci Proved He ‘Understands Science’ As A Tool To Lie To Americans By Joy Pullmann

https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/23/5-times-anthony-fauci-proved-he-understands-science-as-a-tool-to-lie-to-americans/

Meghan McCain is right: Fauci should be fired. He should have been a long, long time ago. He is a liar, and he even admits it. So why is he still on TV?

Leftist media is atwitter over Meghan McCain’s criticism on “The View” Monday of Anthony Fauci’s long history of garbling scientific information to control people rather than find and communicate facts.

On Sunday, Fauci appeared on CNN and refused to say whether grandparents who had been vaccinated against COVID-19 could safely resume seeing their grandchildren in person. Instead, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ridiculously communicated doubt about the vaccines — as America faces a high level of vaccine skepticism — rather than clearly communicate the basic and crucial public health message that getting the vaccine is protective for those most endangered by COVID.

Another key public health message his duplicity undermined is the highly motivating assurance that the vaccine is our ticket back to normal. This is not because the vaccines don’t work, it’s because Fauci’s career has hit its zenith and he has strong incentives to keep himself on TV constantly at the federal government’s highest salary no matter how long children have to miss school or how many isolated people kill themselves while he’s there.

“The View” played a segment of the interview Monday. McCain commented afterward: “The fact that Dr. Fauci is going on CNN and he can’t tell me that if I get the vaccine if I’ll be able to have dinner with my family…if I can go to dinner at friends’ houses who are older — it’s terribly inconsistent messaging and it continues to be inconsistent messaging.”

She then pointed out that Israel is communicating to its populace that if they get the vaccine they can get back to normal life: “Is the science in Israel different than the science here in the United States of America?” She continued:

I for one would like something to look forward to and to hope for, because if getting the vaccine means that just nothing changes and we have to wait another few years until everyone gets it — there’s already a lot of people not getting it. We’re already having a messaging problem getting people to take this vaccine. So I’m over Dr. Fauci. I think we need to have more people giving more opinions and I honestly quite frankly I think the Biden administration should remove him and put someone else in place that maybe does understand science or can talk to other countries about how we can be more like these places that are doing this successfully.

Supreme Court Denial Of 2020 Election Cases Invites ‘Erosion Of Voter Confidence’ The Supreme Court’s abdication of its authority to answer important constitutional questions threatens even more chaotic federal elections. By Margot Cleveland

https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/23/supreme-court-denial-of-2020-election-cases-invites-erosion-of-voter-confidence/

On Feb. 22, the Supreme Court refused to hear two 2020 election-related appeals, falling one vote short of the four needed for the high court to agree to hear the case. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari, as did Justice Samuel Alito in a separate dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

With Joe Biden now a month into his office as president of the United States, Americans may shrug at the court’s decision, but we shouldn’t: The Supreme Court’s abdication of its authority to answer important constitutional questions only encourages further lawlessness by state election officials and courts, undermines voter confidence, and threatens even more chaotic federal elections.

The two cases the Supreme Court rejected on Monday both involved the 2020 election in Pennsylvania and the constitutionality of a state court decision overriding an unambiguous deadline the Pennsylvania legislature established for the receipt of mail-in ballots of 8 p.m. on election night. As Justice Thomas explained in his dissent, “Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a post mark—that the ballots were mailed by election day.”

The Republican Party of Pennsylvania and several members of the Pennsylvania House and Senate attempted to challenge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the U.S. Supreme Court before the election, but, at the time, the justices refused to expedite the case, leaving the petitions for review to proceed under the normal briefing schedule. But following briefing, the court denied the petition on Feb. 22.

Big Tech “Deplatforming” Becomes Ever More Audacious Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-2-22-big-tech-deplatforming-beco

In case your memory doesn’t go back that far, the “deplatforming” thing did not just start in the past couple of months. It was way back in 2016 that Twitter first banned right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos; Facebook followed in 2019. Others getting the same or similar treatment from Twitter, Facebook, and/or Google two or more years ago include Alex Jones of InfoWars and Congressional candidate Laura Loomer.

Then, few on the serious right pushed back. After all, these people are not really our type. Often, they say outrageous things just to provoke a reaction.

But there is a reason why the ACLU, at least in its heyday, thought it was important to defend the rights of avowed neo-Nazis to march in heavily-Jewish Skokie, Illinois. Once the speech-suppression thing gets even a little toe-hold, it can quickly go from seeming insignificance to bold audacity. And thus we had Twitter, in the run-up to the election in October, banning none other than the New York Post — one of the largest-circulation newspapers in the country, and also the oldest — for having broken a story about a laptop of Hunter Biden, a story that happened to be completely true but also embarrassing to the Democratic candidate for President. And then on January 8 Twitter banned Donald Trump, who was not only the then-sitting President of the United States but also Twitter’s singe biggest generator of traffic. That ban appears since to have become permanent. On or about January 10, all of Amazon, Apple and Google took action to deplatform Parler, a web commentary site and alternative to Twitter to which many conservatives had been fleeing.

So, have we come to the end of this wave, or are we just at the beginning? For readers who aren’t following this all that closely, I thought it might be interesting to do a small round-up of some other recent “deplatformings.” The summary is, if you think that there isn’t a concerted effort going on to silence important dissenting speech coming from the right, you are just kidding yourself. A few recent examples:

Is There Wasteful Spending In The New $1.9 Trillion Coronavirus Stimulus Bill? Adam Andrzejewski

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/02/22/is-there-waste-or-bloate

Over the weekend, the U.S. House posted a first draft version of the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” – a $1.9 trillion emergency aid package to help America recover from the coronavirus pandemic.

Previous legislation has already provided at least $4 trillion in funds for testing, paid family leave, small business relief, direct payments to individuals and families, the Kennedy Center, and a plethora of non-related COVID “relief.”

Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership team essentially wrote the bill, our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com found what House Democrats consider coronavirus-recovery “essential” spending:

$1.5 million earmarked for the Seaway International Bridge, which connects New York to Canada. Senate Leader Chuck Schumer hails from New York.
$50 million for “family planning” – going to non-profits, i.e. Planned Parenthood, or public entities, including for “services for adolescents[.]”
$852 million for AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps Vista, and the National Senior Service Corps – the Corporation for National and Community Service – civic volunteer agencies. This includes $9 million for the AmeriCorp inspector general to conduct oversight and audits of the largess. AmeriCorps received a $1.1 billion FY2020 appropriation.

People of goodwill can debate each of these goals, but is it truly emergency spending or funding related to COVID?

For example, what is the public purpose for a hike in the minimum wage to $15 per hour – which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says will cost the economy 1.4 million jobs?

A pregnant pause to consider vaccine denial

https://www.jns.org/opinion/a-pregnant-pause-to-consider-vaccine-denial/

(February 23, 2021 / JNS) A tragedy that befell a Jerusalem family this week and resonated throughout the country should serve as a cautionary tale. A pregnant mother of four was admitted last Tuesday to the COVID-19 intensive-care unit of Hadassah Medical Center-Ein Kerem with respiratory problems.

By Saturday night, despite the best efforts of doctors in various fields, as well as a team of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) experts, Osnat Ben Shitrit went into multi-system failure. Her 30-week fetus, also infected with coronavirus, was delivered by emergency caesarian section but didn’t survive.

Ben Shitrit’s bitter end struck a national nerve. The thought of an Israeli “everywoman”—with little children and another on the way—having her life come to such a halt is a terrifying proposition.

It’s particularly scary right now, with at least 50 pregnant women currently hospitalized with COVID-19, some in serious condition.

One reason for this phenomenon is that the median age of those afflicted with the virus has dramatically decreased since the start of the pandemic. Another is the fact that some two months ago, thanks to a statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the uncertain safety of vaccines for pregnant women, Israeli authorities initially recommended against it.

Thank You, Michael Che! The comedian revealed something important about today’s left. The sooner we get the joke, the better. By Liel Leibovitz

https://mailchi.mp/8fbc25bd843b/krd-news-thank-you-michael-che?e=9365a7c638

“Israel is reporting that they vaccinated half of their population,” comedian Michael Che quipped on this week’s Weekend Update segment of Saturday Night Live. “I’m going to guess it’s the Jewish half.”

Cue the outrage: In email chains and on WhatsApp groups, on Twitter and in frantic text messages, the Jews reacted—expressing anger (“can you believe they would air such an offensive joke on TV? Jews shouldn’t be conflated with Israel!”), sharing irrelevant facts (“actually, 43% of Israel’s Arabs have already been vaccinated, too!”), and, my favorite, Sternly Demanding Apologies™: “Your ‘joke’ is ignorant—the fact is that the success of our vaccination drive is exactly because every citizen of Israel—Jewish, Muslim, Christian—is entitled to it. Apologize!”

Friends, we’ve got to stop this. Che’s joke wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t something someone accidentally let air on a decades-long television show with a cast and crew in the hundreds. It wasn’t even new for him. Was the line anti-Semitic? Yep. Was it also absolutely intended? You betcha.

If you’re one of the good folk upset by this joke, I’m going to guess that at least some of the following statements are also true about you: You’re furious about the anti-Israel bent in The New York Times and wonder what can be done to make the paper of record “correct its bias”; you can’t believe how mired in political correctness our culture has gotten; you think we should spend a lot of time and resources fighting BDS on college campuses; you don’t fully understand why and how what you may call “the woke” or “the radical left” got so loud and so influential, but you think it’s very important and very possible for reasonable people to get together and beat back the tide.

House Dems’ Misguided Effort to Muzzle Conservative Media . By Bradley A. Smith

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/02/23/house_dems_misguided_effort_to_muzzle_conservative_media_145292.html

On Feb. 24, House Democrats will hold a hearing on “traditional media’s role in promoting disinformation and extremism.” This hearing is a dangerous threat to American democracy and goes entirely against what the Founders intended when they made a free press Americans’ guaranteed First Amendment right in the Constitution.

It’s also just the latest threat against free speech from the left, which has now mainstreamed a despotic desire to use government to cancel conservative speech. Just last week, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called for Fox News to be on trial for supporting former President Donald Trump. This is the same Kristof who recently began calling for a War on Terror-style campaign against Trump supporters and “the ecosystem that produces them” — completely missing the key difference between the right to free speech and the lack of rights to commit political violence.

Kristof’s dangerous rhetoric joins that of other influential mainstream media figures who are targeting media they deem too friendly towards Trump. Washington Post columnist Max Boot wants cable companies to cut off Fox, and MSNBC commentator Anand Giridharadas suggests that the outlet shouldn’t even exist. 

Freedom of expression is essential to a flourishing democracy, which is why I oppose unconstitutional limits on free speech. It’s why I supported the rights of liberal groups like the Brennan Center to oppose my nomination to the Federal Elections Commission 20 years ago even though they said things I felt were often unfair and sometimes untrue. Kristof has the right to publish his views if they are peaceful, just as Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh have said things that Democrats don’t like. Calls to shut down a major news source like Fox, or even its smaller allies in the conservative media world, whether through corporate deplatforming or government force, cross the line from opposing ideas to undermining our civil society.