EDUCATION Comments turned off

Teaching That America Is Hopelessly Racist By Peter Wood

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2019/09/09/teaching-that-america-is-hopelessly-racist/

Peter Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars and author of “Diversity: the Invention of a Concept.”

Many more college students have read Ta-Nehisi Coates’ anti-white screed Between the World and Me (2015) than have read, say, works by the Nobel economist Robert Fogel, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery (1974) or Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery (1989). I can say that with some confidence. The Open Syllabus Project finds Coates’ book assigned in 783 courses. Fogel’s Time on the Cross is assigned in 22 courses and his Without Consent or Contract in 156 courses. Moreover, Coates’ book is now the second most-assigned book in the country in college summer reading programs.

Coates treats slavery as an institution that was never truly abolished. It continues as the pervasive racism of American society. This rhetorical flourish sells a lot of books today. Fogel, the economic historian, takes on slavery as an appallingly real institution and brings intellectual heft to the task of explaining it.

That contrast is all the more important in light of The New York Times’ plunge into re-educating all Americans about our history through the lens of African American slavery. The Times launched its 1619 Project on August 18 to a great deal of fanfare. 1619 is the year that the first black African slaves landed at Jamestown. It is a noteworthy date, but not quite what the beginning of slavery in the New World or in what would become the United States. The Spanish had brought African slaves long before. And we have at least one account by an early Spanish soldier, Cabeza de Vaca, who was captured and enslaved by Native Americans in the South in the 1520s. Slavery was an indigenous American institution long before Europeans got here.

Be that as it may, the Times wants to reimagine the European version of America as founded on slavery and stained in every possible way by the continuing effects of slavery. This is a political project more than a historical one. Its unacknowledged goal is to taint all opposition to progressive political goals as rooted in the perpetuation of oppression, and perhaps to delegitimize America itself.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Pseudo-science, the Bible and human freedom David Goldman

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/opinion/pseudo-science-the-bible-and-human-freedom/

Scientists are confused about every foundational problem in physics and biology. The more confused they get, the more prevalent the notion becomes that the human brain is just another machine and human consciousness is a byproduct of electromagnetic effluvia. Never mind that we don’t know what an electron is, let alone an atom, not to mention a molecule, and we don’t know why such things interact with each other.

The trouble is that people want to believe that their thoughts and impulses are determined by something other than their own judgment. The popularity of scientific determinism has jumped while the explanatory power of science has bumped up against its own limitations, whether acknowledged or not. The irony is that our longing for determinism has nothing to do with science as such. On the contrary, the popularity of scientific determinism has grown along with obviously pre-scientific kinds of determinism, notably astrology, which is enjoying a revival among millennials. These considerations came to mind reading Scott Shay’s book In Good Faith, which contrasts the claims of biblical religion to the old idolatry of the pagan world and its contemporary avatars.

Shay observes, “The Bible assumes human beings have the ability to make moral choices. But today, many scientists, particularly neuroscientists, have begun to question the idea that man possesses any such things as ‘free will.’ The Bible takes for granted that man knows the difference between good and evil, even if we are tempted to deceive ourselves. Scientists, in contrast, are not so certain. In the book Free Will, Sam Harris takes the position that free will is illusory. At the same time, he recognizes, as do other neuroscientists, that as humans we can consciously deliberate and make choices. So what is the current debate on free will all about?” The full-credit answer requires reading his book. Below are a few pointers.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Bibi’s incumbency (dis)advantage Ruthie Blum

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Bibis-incumbency-disadvantage-601547

Having a proven record in office is not always a good thing for a politician, as it opens him up to all kinds of criticism, some legitimate.

Nothing better illustrates the candidates’ hysteria in the run-up to next week’s Knesset election than the amount of coverage devoted to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s behavior during a rocket attack on Tuesday evening.

While the incumbent PM was about to deliver a pep talk to his supporters at a Likud campaign gathering in Ashdod, a red-alert siren began to blare, indicating that projectiles were on the way to the immediate vicinity. Though a familiar sound to Israelis, particularly in the South, the rise and fall of the air-raid siren always causes panic. The prospect of being hit by a missile will do that.  As a result, many of the people in attendance began to shriek and run a bit wild. Netanyahu’s security detail immediately tried to whisk him off the stage to safety. But he did not rush.       

In a cool and collected manner, he paused to instruct the crowd to keep calm and slowly make their way to the nearest bomb shelter. Only then did he allow his guards to escort him off the premises. The IDF subsequently reported that two rockets launched by terrorists in Gaza were intercepted by the Iron Dome defense system.

When the incident was over, Netanyahu returned to the podium to resume the rally.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Iranian Tanker Fiasco Exposes Britain’s Muddled Thinking by Con Coughlin

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14877/iran-britain-shipping-seizure

The ensuing diplomatic stand-off between London and Tehran eventually resulted in Britain agreeing to release the Grace One, but only after the British authorities received written assurances from Iran that the oil would not be delivered to Syria.

Now it appears that Iran has deliberately misled the British government about its intentions after satellite photographs revealed the ship, which has now been renamed the Adrian Darya 1, is in Syria, where its $130 million oil cargo has been handed over to the Assad regime.

“Anyone who said the Adrian Darya-1 wasn’t headed to #Syria is in denial. Tehran thinks it’s more important to fund the murderous Assad regime than provide for its own people. We can talk, but #Iran’s not getting any sanctions relief until it stops lying and spreading terror!” — Ambassador John Bolton, then US National Security Advisor, September 7, 2019.

The sorry saga of the Iranian oil tanker that was originally seized by Britain before making its way to Syria to unload its cargo in breach of EU sanctions highlights the confusion that lies at the heart of the British government’s policy towards Tehran.

The Iranian-registered tanker, which at the time sailed under the name Grace One, was seized by British Royal Marines in early July off the coast of Gibraltar on suspicion that it was delivering its cargo of 2.1 million barrels of oil to Syria, a clear violation of EU sanctions that are in place against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Iran responded two weeks later by seizing the British-registered tanker Stena Impero as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, thereby causing deep embarrassment for the government of then British Prime Minister Theresa May, which had failed to put adequate measures in place to protect British shipping from any act of Iranian retaliation.

The ensuing diplomatic stand-off between London and Tehran eventually resulted in Britain agreeing to release the Grace One, but only after the British authorities received written assurances from Iran that the oil would not be delivered to Syria.

Now it appears that Iran has deliberately misled the British government about its intentions after satellite photographs revealed the ship, which has now been renamed the Adrian Darya 1, is in Syria, where its $130 million oil cargo has been handed over to the Assad regime.

MEDIA Comments turned off

The Intelligence Community Works for the President Losing democratic control over the intelligence community would be the end of self-government. Adam Mill

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/12/the-intelligence-community-works-for-the-president/

It’s simply hard to know where to begin to respond to the staggering chutzpah of Jennifer Rubin’s recent Washington Post opinion column accusing the president of undermining our intelligence community.

Rubin used the recent leak regarding the exfiltration (a fancy word for “removal”) of an undercover “asset” in Russia as a hook to make the case that the president is somehow responsible for outing this source and therefore harming U.S. interests. Her column is an example of the backward view elite leftists have towards democracy and the Constitution. These elites, in desperate need of a remedial civics class, have convinced themselves that our elected president must learn to take orders from the intelligence community.

Here is a partial inventory of what is demonstrably wrong with Rubin’s piece:

President Trump is not responsible for outing the secret CIA mole.

Rubin relied on this badly sourced story from CNN, which reported, “The removal [of the mole] happened at a time of wide concern in the intelligence community about mishandling of intelligence by Trump and his administration. Those concerns were described to CNN by five sources who served in the Trump administration, intelligence agencies and Congress.”

When you read CNN is using a former intelligence official as a source, there’s a good chance it’s using one of its own paid get-Trump contributors.

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

No, Conservatives Shouldn’t Make Environmental Policy a Priority Julie Kelly

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/12/no-conservatives-shouldnt-make-environmental-policy-a-priority-now/

Americans finally are getting a close look at what a future controlled by climate freaks would really look like—and they are justifiably alarmed.

As I wrote earlier this week, the Democratic Party is accomplishing what the Republican Party—conservatives in particular—failed to do for more than two decades: Exposing the general public to the radical, authoritarian, and wholly unrealistic agenda lurking behind the facade of the climate change movement.

The Green New Deal betrayed the climate crusade’s outlandish demands in its starkest, darkest terms yet, and a seven-hour climate change “town hall” on CNN this month featured Democratic presidential hopefuls promising everything from abortion and plastic straw bans to government-ordered veganism as solutions to halt supposed climate change. Democratic candidates promise to become more dystopian on this issue as they head into the heart of the 2020 campaign season.

So, presented with this gift, it is no time for Republicans and conservatives to take the boot off the throat of the collective climate propaganda machine.

That’s why I have a quibble with my publisher and pal, Chris Buskirk, over his recent missive encouraging conservatives to put environmental policy toward the top of our to-do list: “We’ve avoided making the environment a political priority for decades and the country is worse for it,” Buskirk wrote. “Conservatives should embrace this issue. It’s a chance to do good and to do well.”

In another time, I might partially agree with Buskirk’s sentiment. But not at this political moment.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Take Two Aspirin and Call Me by My Pronouns At ‘woke’ medical schools, curricula are increasingly focused on social justice rather than treating illness. By Stanley Goldfarb ******

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://www.wsj.com/articles/take-two-aspirin-and-call-me-by-my-pronouns-11568325291

The American College of Physicians says its mission is to promote the “quality and effectiveness of health care,” but it’s stepped out of its lane recently with sweeping statements on gun control. And that isn’t the only recent foray into politics by medical professionals. During my term as associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, I was chastised by a faculty member for not including a program on climate change in the course of study. As the Journal reported last month, such programs are spreading across medical schools nationwide.

Why have medical schools become a target for inculcating social policy when the stated purpose of medical education since Hippocrates has been to develop individuals who know how to cure patients?

A new wave of educational specialists is increasingly influencing medical education. They emphasize “social justice” that relates to health care only tangentially. This approach is the result of a progressive mind-set that abhors hierarchy of any kind and the social elitism associated with the medical profession in particular.

These educators focus on eliminating health disparities and ensuring that the next generation of physicians is well-equipped to deal with cultural diversity, which are worthwhile goals. But teaching these issues is coming at the expense of rigorous training in medical science. The prospect of this “new,” politicized medical education should worry all Americans.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Losers of the Third Democratic Debate By Tyler O’Neil

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

Loser: Kamala Harris.

Kamala’s bad debate night started when she addressed President Trump right off the cuff. She spoke to Trump “who we all know is watching.” At that very moment, Trump was on stage at the GOP retreat, as Townhall’s Storm Paglia noted. Then Harris tried to say “Yes, we can,” to Biden, who shut her down by referencing the Constitution.

In one of the most memorable moments of the night, moderator Linsey Davis slammed Harris for her flip-flops on criminal justice issues. “When you had the power, why didn’t you try to effect change then?” Davis asked — to loud applause from the audience.

Loser: Pete Buttigieg.

The mayor of South Bend did not stand out at the third Democratic debate. He got in a plug for his Douglas Plan — a kind of nationwide affirmative action scheme — but he did not have a strong moment. Toward the end, he told a sob story about living under Mike Pence when Pence was governor of Indiana. He did emerge as more hopeful on the race issue, stressing the importance of black entrepreneurship.

Loser: Julian Castro.

Castro attempted to reframe the debate around the issue of Joe Biden’s senility, but his attack on Biden did not work. Rather than hitting Biden on the former vice president’s many embarrassing gaffes, Castro attempted to get Biden to admit to a gaffe in the middle of the debate, and it backfired.

Loser: The Protesters.

Right after ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked Biden a question about resilience, protesters loudly interrupted. Their uncoordinated shouts became indecipherable. No one could tell why they were interrupting, and Bernie told the vice president to keep speaking and ignore the protesters.

While there were six winners and only four losers, Biden won big. For the first time, I saw a Joe Biden who could actually be president. Naturally, he will likely devolve into his usual gaffetastic self, but for at least this one night he inspired confidence, not mockery. If this debate matters, it largely helps him.

As for the other winners, they had standout moments but were unlikely to join the top three (with the exception of Warren). O’Rourke, Yang, Booker, and Klobuchar may have an outside chance to emerge as a dark horse, but that remains unlikely.

Bernie Sanders really tanked tonight, and Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg also did not have the performances they need to break into the top three.

If this debate were to really make an impact in the race, the 2020 Democratic primary would be shaping up to be a challenge between Biden and Warren

POLITICS Comments turned off

Winners of the Third Democratic Debate By Tyler O’Neil

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/winners-and-losers-of-the-third-democratic-debate/

The top ten Democrats faced off for the first time Thursday in the third Democratic debate. Frontrunner and former Vice President Joe Biden faced off with his two closest challengers, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg fought to hold on to their second-tier status, as five other candidates attempted to edge in.

Winner: Joe Biden.

The former vice president decided to go on offense Thursday night, and it worked well. He attacked Sanders and Warren on health care, pointing out the extremely high cost of Medicare for All and the fact that a fully single-payer overhaul would cause Americans to lose their health insurance.

Winner: Elizabeth Warren.

Liz Warren played it safe in this debate. She didn’t go after Biden and she mostly played to her strengths: mentioning her complicated policy plans, pushing for environmentalists and human rights activists to be at the table in trade talks with China, and reminding Americans that she was a schoolteacher.Warren has become a driving force of energy in the Democratic field in recent weeks, but that energy seemed muted this evening. Even so, her policy-heavy campaign seems well-tailored for success, especially if Biden and Bernie falter. She did not advance much tonight, but she didn’t falter, either.

Winner: Beto O’Rourke.

The third Democratic debate took place in Houston, Texas, Beto O’Rourke’s home turf. Debate moderators and candidates mentioned the shooting in El Paso, turning to pay homage to him as the local.

O’Rourke received loud applause for his line about gun confiscation: “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47!” he declared. Many liberals and journalists suggested this line defeated the argument for the Second Amendment and gun ownership.

Winner: Andrew Yang.

Yang received the lowest amount of time during the debate, but he used his time very well. He made news by announcing that he would give $1,000 per month away to ten families for one year to illustrate his central promise, the “Freedom Dividend,” a Universal Basic Income (UBI) strategy to replace many forms of welfare.

Winner: Cory Booker.

Booker proved well-spoken and surprisingly balanced on a few issues.

At one point, Castro attacked charter schools, declaring, “It is a myth that charter schools are better than public schools. They’re not.” Booker responded by insisting that in Newark he closed poor-performing charter schools but he supported charter schools that did well. (By the way, an exhaustive review of the data on charter schools found that charter elementary schools outperform traditional public schools in reading and math, while the superiority of charter high schools is less certain.)

Winner: Amy Klobuchar.

Klobuchar mostly had a forgettable debate performance, but she enjoyed a standout moment when discussing Bernie’s Medicare for All bill. “While Bernie wrote the bill, I read the bill, and on page 8, on page 8 of the bill, it says that we will no longer have private insurance as we know it. … I don’t think that’s a bold idea. I think it it’s a bad idea,” she declared.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Breaking Down the Report of an Imminent McCabe Indictment By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on September 13th, 2019

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/andrew-mccabe-report-imminent-indictment/

McCabe has indicated that, if charged, he would claim the Justice Department was under pressure from the White House.

Federal prosecutors in Washington have recommended that criminal charges be filed against Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, and the Justice Department has rejected a last-ditch appeal by McCabe’s lawyers, according to a report on Thursday by Fox News. This clears the way for what appears to be McCabe’s imminent indictment.

Jesse Liu, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia (appointed by Trump), has reportedly decided that McCabe should be charged. The decision was based on a referral by the Justice Department’s inspector general (appointed by Obama), Michael Horowitz. In a comprehensive report last year, issued after a probe of a leak of investigative information to the media orchestrated by McCabe, Horowitz found that McCabe had misled investigators, including making false statements under oath. As we observed here when the IG’s report was released, the case laid out by Horowitz appears compelling.

The Fox report indicates that Liu signaled to McCabe’s lawyers that she was persuaded to file charges. McCabe’s lawyers then appealed that decision to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general (DAG). At least one source told Fox that McCabe’s team received an email from the Justice Department, which states: “The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.”