If the New York Times Had Real Editors

Saturday, September 19, AD 2015

nyt invert

 

National Review Online’s Kevin Williamson cements his reputation as one of the more thought provoking writers on the net with this hilarious piece which takes apart a typical example of biased “reporting” from the New York Times:

 

 

 

MEMO FROM: Copy desk
TO: New York Times Foreign desk
RE: Diaa Hadid for AM international; mark-up attached
HEAD: Jewish Man Dies as Rocks Pelt His Car in East Jerusalem [ED: “As rocks pelt his car”? How exactly did the rocks go about doing this? Are these special angry Palestinian rocks that get up off the ground and hurl themselves at Jews? Unless we’re talking about The Rock, in which case he’s going by “Dwayne Johnson” these days, I don’t think a rock is capable of committing an act of violence on its own.]
BYLINE: Diaa Hadid
DATELINE: Ramallah, West Bank, 14 September 2015
COPY: A Jewish man died [ED: “was killed.”] early Monday morning after attackers pelted the road [ED: “pelted the road”? They were aiming at the pavement? Please clarify.] he was driving on with rocks as he was returning home from a dinner celebrating Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, the Israeli authorities said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called an emergency meeting to discuss rock-throwing, mostly [ED: “mostly”? Which other rock-throwers were discussed at the emergency meeting?] by Palestinian youths.
The man was identified in local news reports as Alexander Levlovich, 64. His death was reported as the police and Palestinian youths clashed [ED: Is it the case that the police and the Palestinian youths “clashed,” or is it the case that the police tried to stop violent crimes from being committed? Do the police “clash” with bank-robbers or muggers?] for a second day at Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, amid tensions [Who is tense about this? Are Jews experiencing “tension” over being allowed to move about freely for the purposes of having dinner?] over increased visits by Jews for Rosh Hashana. The two-day holiday began at sundown on Sunday.
A statement from the Israeli police said the assailants were throwing stones [ED: At . . . ?] on Sunday night on a road that runs between a Palestinian and Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem. The police said the stone-throwing “led to a self-inflicted accident,” [ED: This is a quote, sure, albeit one without specific sourcing, but are we really going to pretend this was “self-inflicted”?] as the man lost control of the car [ED: “was driven off the road”] and smashed into a pole.
Palestinians scuffled [ED: At what point does a “scuffle” with “riot police” become, you know, rioting?] with the Israeli riot police after security forces blocked a road leading to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City on Monday.
Luba Samri, a police spokeswoman, said the rock-throwing appeared to have caused the accident but that “nothing is 100 percent sure.” The police, with a court’s permission, said no more details about the case could be published while an investigation was continuing.
On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said he would call a special meeting after Rosh Hashana ends Tuesday evening to discuss “harsher punishments and strict enforcement” and other means to combat rock-throwing.
The government had already said, on Sept. 2, that it was considering harsher measures against Palestinian stone-throwers [ED: “harsher measures against Palestinian stone-throwers,” or against, as above, mostly Palestinian stone-throwers?], including more use of live ammunition and tougher minimum sentences.
Israeli security forces have increasingly grappled with rock-throwing, particularly along a highway in the occupied West Bank that is mostly used by Jewish settlers and on roads leading to Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. [ED: Hmm: Jewish settlers, Jewish neighborhoods: Does a trend seem to suggest itself to you?]

[ED: Here at the end of the eighth paragraph in this story about a Jewish man being murdered for the crime of driving while Jewish, I’m wondering if we’re going to get a straightforward statement of the fact that this Jewish man was murdered for the crime of driving while Jewish.]

 

Continue reading...

5 Responses to If the New York Times Had Real Editors

  • A.M. Rosenthal was congenially disposed toward Israel, but the rest of the upper echelon there have long been indifferent, as are the large mass of Jewish politicians in this country, push comes to shove (see the Iran deal). The characters who’ve been pushing the line that wirepulling Jews have folded, spindled, and mutilated American foreign policy in the interests of Israel have had their ass handed to them in recent weeks.

  • Art Deco, rather than ‘indifferent’, I’d say that the Times— along with most of
    the mainstream media in this country– is actually hostile toward Israel.
    ‘Indifference’ implies passivity and a neutral attitude, and as we see in Mr. Willaimson’s
    NRO piece excerpted here, the Times’ so-called journalism is anything but
    neutral.

  • If the Israelis and the rocks would just sit down at the bargaining table and work this out, maybe the Palestinians wouldn’t keep getting caught up as innocent victims.

  • When rocks are outlawed, only Palestinians will have rocks.
    The Times story of the Jewish victim demonstrates what seems visceral bias on the part of the authors. We see this frequently in reports of violence involving firearms. “Fury will find its weapon” but many on the Left will find their bias. As gun-control has become an idée fixe among the people of the Left, so also has a degree of anti-Israel bias. The proper question to ask is not whence cometh the firearms or the rocks but whence cometh the violence.

Various and Sundry, 3/3/15

Tuesday, March 3, AD 2015

I’m bringing back an old feature, which I will hopefully be able to bring back nightly. Please feel free to use this as an open evening thread for anything you’d like to share, including news and prayer petitions.

– I’m beginning to feel a lot like Ace here.  The argument that Congress is limited in its ability to push back against the President only goes so far, and certainly collapses when you actually do have the power to tie his hands. I also agree with AllahPundit that we shouldn’t be too impressed with the number of Republicans who voted against the leadership, as many of them would have voted for the funding bill if their votes were really needed.

This isn’t even purely a partisan issue. At some point the legislative branch has to be willing to stop the continuing overreach of the executive. The checks and balances of our form of government is arguably the quintessential element of the republic. As these checks are eroded, so too is the notion that we are, in fact, dwelling in a republic.

– Party over, whoops, out of time, it looks like we’re living through the 90s again. Hey, the ability to totally ignore the Constitution without consequence is now an essential trait in any would-be President.

– Curt Schilling tweeted some words of pride and congratulations for his daughter, and naturally some individuals decided to take the opportunity to exemplify everything that is wrong with the internet, including tweeting some rape threats against his daughter. Schilling took to his blog and outed these fools, one of whom (at least) was fired, while others face other forms of discipline.

This incident is interesting as it gets to the idea of public shaming for internet comments. There was a story recently (that I’ve unfortunately misplaced) following rather infamous internet celebrities who lost jobs and any sense of privacy due to ill-advised tweets. The article made the point that the “grab the pitchforks” mentality can really go way overboard, and people have their lives ruined over 140 unwise characters. On the other hand, public shaming does have the effect of silencing the worst and most obvious offenders, and in this case I will cry no tears over someone losing their job because they tweeted their rape fantasies.

– Speaking of public shaming, I would like to do that the dolts employed by the Montgomery County (MD) Child Protective Services who found some local parents guilty of “unsubstantiated child neglect,” their sin allowing their 10-year old and 6-year old to walk home by themselves from the park. Now they will be “watched” by CPS for the next five years. As one of the commenters put it:

I think we need to start lobbying state legislatures for reasonable laws that provide some clarity and security for families in these situations. As I understand it, this is the law the Meitivs were accused of violating: “A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.” How does letting your kids walk home from the park even trigger an investigation under this statute? It is unacceptable that CPS has the authority to interpret the law so loosely in order to bring a family into the system.

I was happy that most of the callers into the local radio show this morning were as perturbed by this decision as I was, but one person would just simply not accept the fact that kids are in no more danger of abduction today than they were 30 years ago. Some people just can’t let fact get in the way of unsubstantiated fear mongering.

– Rebecca Taylor is right: the UK has just made a frightening decision to allow the creation of three-parent embryos, and Catholics have largely been silent on this abomination.

Even more infuriating is that fact that, at the very same time that the UK approves the genetic engineering of the next generation (and the next, and the next), Hershey’s has been so hounded by food purists on social media that the confectioner has given into the pressure to remove any ingredients that come from genetically-modified organisms.

Great. We will be eating GMO-free chocolate (reading about the spread of Dengue fever) while we blissfully ignore the creation of genetically-modified kids.

– Kevin Williamson is just awesome. But you already knew that.

Here he is destroying Politifact for, as usual, not getting its facts straight.

And here he is, defending Archbishop Cordileone’s “scandalous” decision to uphold Church teaching.

And here he is one more time, once again writing about the good Archbishop.

The people who have the strongest feelings about Catholic teaching tend to be the people who know the least about it. That the archbishop is a fallen creature, a sinner like the rest of us, is not a challenge to Christian teaching—it is a vindication of Christian teaching. Of course the archbishop is called to a life of greater holiness—just like the rest of us—and of course he is going to fail—just like the rest of us. That’s the weird tough nut at the heart of Christianity: “Here’s an impossibility high standard that you have to try to live up to as part of a faith based on the understanding that you are not going to do that.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Various and Sundry, 3/3/15

  • At some point the legislative branch has to be willing to stop the continuing overreach of the executive. The checks and balances of our form of government is arguably the quintessential element of the republic. As these checks are eroded, so too is the notion that we are, in fact, dwelling in a republic.

    .
    No worries –then next time the Republicans a conservative wins the White House, Congress will suddenly recall the importance of checks and balances.
    .
    Anyways, a step in the right direction would be for the Senate to eliminate the filibuster altogether.

  • Regarding the Maryland case of the two children whose 1-mile walk
    home from the park got their parents investigated by CPS, one of the
    commenters in the article linked made an interesting observation. It
    seems that the Montgomery County Public School system’s guidelines
    state that elementary school children may be eligible to ride the bus to and
    from school if their homes are over 1 mile from the school! The busybody
    who called in the two children has his or her work cut out for them, as
    it would appear there are many, many elementary school-age kids walking a
    mile without adult supervision in that county…

  • I pulled this off of the internet. not verified, but it can’t be all wrong, can it? Concerning Congress entertaining heads of state other than those invited by the president:
    September 18, 2014 Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 8, 2013 Park Geun Hye, President of Republic of Korea addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    October 13, 2011 Lee Myung-bak, President of Republic of Korea addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 24, 2011 Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 9, 2011 Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 20, 2010 Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, President of Mexico addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 3, 2009 Dr. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 4, 2009 Gordon Brown, Prime Minster of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 30, 2008 Bertie Ahern, Prime Minister of Ireland addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 7, 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 7, 2007 King Abdullah II Bin Al Hussein, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 26, 2006 Dr. Nouri Al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 7, 2006 Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President of Latvia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 24, 2006 Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 15, 2006 Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of the Republic of Liberia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 1, 2006 Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 19, 2005 Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 6, 2005 Viktor Yushchenko, President of Ukraine addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 23, 2004 Ayad Allawi, Interim Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 15, 2004 Hamid Karzai, Prime Minister of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 4, 2004 Jose Maria Aznar, President of the Government of Spain addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 17, 2003 Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 12, 2002 John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress. The scheduled address by Prime Minister John Howard of Australia to a Joint Meeting of Congress on September 12, 2001, was cancelled.
    September 6, 2001 Vicente Fox, President of Mexico addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 14, 2000 Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 15, 1998 Emil Constantinescu, President of Romania, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 10, 1998 Kim Dae-jung, President of South Korea, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 27, 1997 Eduardo Frei, President of Chile, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 11, 1996 John Bruton, Prime Minister of Ireland, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 10, 1996 Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 1, 1996 Jacques Chirac, President of France, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    December 12, 1995 Shimon Peres, Prime Minister of Israel, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 26, 1995 Kim Yong-sam, President of South Korea, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    October 6, 1994 Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 26, 1994 Hussein I, King of Jordan, and Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 18, 1994 Narasimba Rao, Prime Minister of India, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 17, 1992 Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 30, 1992 Richard von Weizsäcker, President of Germany, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 14, 1991 Carlos Saul Menem, President of Argentina, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 16, 1991 Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 16, 1991 Violeta B. de Chamorro, President of Nicaragua, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 26, 1990 Nelson Mandela, Deputy President of the African National Congress, South Africa, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 7, 1990 Giulio Andreotti, President of the Council of Ministers of Italy, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 21, 1990 Vaclav Hável, President of Czechoslovakia, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 15, 1989 Lech Walesa, chairman of SolidarnoϾ labor union, Poland, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 18, 1989 Roh Tae Woo, President of South Korea, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    October 4, 1989 Carlos Salinas de Gortari, President of Mexico, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 7, 1989 Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 23, 1988 Robert Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 27, 1988 Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 10, 1987 Chaim Herzog, President of Israel, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 18, 1986 Corazon C. Aquino, President of the Philippines, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 11, 1986 Jose Sarney, President of Brazil, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    October 9, 1985 Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 13, 1985 Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 20, 1985 Raul Alfonsin, President Argentina, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress
    March 6, 1985 Bettino Craxi, President of the Council of Ministers of Italy, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 20, 1985 Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 16, 1984 Miguel de la Madrid, President of Mexico, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 22, 1984 François Mitterand, President of France, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 15, 1984 Dr. Garett FitzGerald, Prime Minister of Ireland, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    October 5, 1983 Karl Carstens, President of West Germany, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 21, 1982 Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 22, 1977 Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau of Canada addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 23, 1976 President William R. Tolbert, Jr., of Liberia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 2, 1976 Juan Carlos I, King of Spain, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 18, 1976 President Valery Giscard d’Estaing of France addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 17, 1976 Prime Minister Liam Cosgrave of Ireland addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    January 28, 1976 Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 5, 1975 President Anwar El Sadat of Egypt addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 17, 1975 President Walter Scheel of West Germany addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 15, 1972 President Luis Echeverria Alvarez of Mexico addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 3, 1970 President Rafael Caldera of Venezuela addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 25, 1970 President Georges Pompidou of France addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    October 27, 1967 President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz of Mexico addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 15, 1966 President Ferdinand E. Marcos of the Philippines addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 28, 1964 President Eamon de Valera of Ireland addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    January 15, 1964 President Antonio Segni of Italy addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 12, 1962 Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Shahanshah of Iran, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 4, 1962 President Joao Goulart of Brazil addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 21, 1961 President Manuel Prado of Peru addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 12, 1961 President Mohammad Ayub Khan of Pakistan addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 4, 1961 President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 29, 1960 Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 28, 1960 Mahendra, King of Nepal addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 25, 1960 President Charles de Gaulle of France addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 6, 1960 President Alberto Lleras-Camargo of Columbia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 12, 1959 Baudouin, King of the Belgians, addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 18, 1959 President Sean T. O’Kelly of Ireland addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    March 11, 1959 President Jose Maria Lemus of El Salvador addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    January 21, 1959 President Arturo Frondizi of Argentina addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 18, 1958 President Carlos F. Garcia of the Philippines addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 5, 1958 President Theodor Heuss of West Germany addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 9, 1957 President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 17, 1956 President Sukarno of Indonesia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    February 29, 1956 President Giovanni Gronchi of Italy addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    January 27, 1955 President Paul E. Magliore of Haiti addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    July 28, 1954 President Syngman Rhee of South Korea addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 28, 1954 Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 4, 1954 Governor General Vincent Massey of Canada addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    January 29, 1954 President Celal Bayar of Turkey addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 3, 1952 Queen Juliana of the Netherlands addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    January 17, 1952 Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    September 24, 1951 Prime Minister Alcide de Gasperi of Italy addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    June 21, 1951 President Galo Plaza of Ecuador addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 2, 1951 President Vincent Auriol of France addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 19, 1949 President Gaspar Dutra of Brazil addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    April 19, 1948 Ambassador Guillermo Belt of Cuba addressed a Joint Session of Congress held to memorialize the 50th anniversary of Cuban independence.
    May 1, 1947 President Miguel Aleman of Mexico addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    November 13, 1945 Prime Minister Clement R. Attlee of the United Kingdom addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 19, 1943 Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    December 26, 1941 Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress.
    May 20, 1934 Ambassador Andre’ de Laboulaye of France addressed a Joint Session of Congress held to memorialize the centennial anniversary of the death of Lafayette.

  • The busybody who called in the two children has his or her work cut out for them, as it would appear there are many, many elementary school-age kids walking a mile without adult supervision in that county

    Wagers the busybody in question is someone who has had disputes with them in the past or is smoldering over fancied slights. My guess would be an abrasive late-middle aged female.

  • There was a story recently (that I’ve unfortunately misplaced) following rather infamous internet celebrities who lost jobs and any sense of privacy due to ill-advised tweets.

    Is this the article you were thinking of?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html

    If not, let me recommend it. It’s a great article that I shared with my high school students.

The Movement the Left Fears Most

Tuesday, October 7, AD 2014

Homeschooling

The Left isn’t having kids, so they insist on stealing yours.

Dale Price

Kevin Williamson at National Review Online looks at the brazen attempt in Connecticut, go here to read my take on it, to use the Sandy Hook massacre to increase regulation of homeschooling.

Home-schoolers represent the only authentically radical social movement in the United States (Occupy Wall Street was a fashion statement) and so they must be suppressed, as a malevolent committee of leftist academics and union bosses under the direction of Governor Dannel Malloy is preparing to do in Connecticut, using the Sandy Hook massacre as a pretext. The ghouls invariably rush to the podium after every school massacre, issuing their insipid press releases before the bodies have even cooled, and normally they’re after your guns. But the Malloy gang is after your children.

Malloy’s committee on the Newtown shootings is recommending that Connecticut require home-schooling families to present their children to the local authorities periodically for inspection, to see to it that their psychological and social growth is proceeding in the desired direction. For anybody even passingly familiar with contemporary government schools, which are themselves a peerless source of social and emotional dysfunction, this development is bitterly ironic.

Adam Lanza was the product of madness, but he also was very much a product of the public schools and their allied institutions. He was briefly — very briefly — homeschooled after his parents had exhausted every other option. His mental troubles began long before he was home-schooled and were in fact well known to and documented by the various credentialed authorities under whose management he spent his youth, from his kindergarten therapists to the scholars at Yale’s Child Study Center. Far from being removed from the public system, Lanza was still attending student club meetings at Newtown’s high school just before the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

As City Journal notes, the Malloy gang says that Lanza’s educational and medical records support its proposals, which is curious: Its members have no access to those records. But a government commission says that it is so, so it must be so.

If you have not followed the issue closely, it is probably impossible for you to understand how intensely the Left and the government-school monopoly hate, loathe, and distrust home-schooling and home-school families. Purportedly serious scholars such as Robin West of Georgetown denounce them as trailer trash living “on tarps in fields or parking lots” and write wistfully of the day when home-schooling was properly understood: “Parents who did so were criminals, and their kids were truants.” The implicit rationale for the heavy regulation of home-schooling — that your children are yours only at the sufferance of the state — is creepy enough; in fact, it is unambiguously totalitarian and reduces children to the status of chattel. That this is now being framed in mental-health terms, under the theory that Lanza might not have committed his crimes if he had had the benefit of the tender attentions of his local school authorities, is yet another reminder of the Left’s long and grotesque history of using corrupt psychiatry as a tool of politics.  

But take a moment to fully appreciate the absurdity of the Malloy gang’s assumption. Our public schools are dysfunctional, depressing, frequently dangerous places. Their architecture is generally penal, incorporating precisely the same sort of perimeter control as one sees in a low-security prison, with dogs, metal detectors, and the whole apparatus of control at hand. They are frequently run by nakedly corrupt, self-serving men and women who are not above rigging test scores to pad out their bonuses and who will fight to the end to keep pedophiles on the payroll if doing so serves their political interests, as in the case of California. They cannot even keep their teachers from raping their students, but they feel competent issuing orders that every family present its children for regular inspection in the name of the children’s “social and emotional learning needs.”

Continue reading...

19 Responses to The Movement the Left Fears Most

  • “What one must understand is that for the Left in this country the public school system is largely a success story.”
    .
    Absolutely. This and every other social program of the last 100 years. Social security is working exactly as planned, for instance.

  • “The Left isn’t having kids, so they insist on stealing yours.
    Dale Price”
    Nothing less than kidnapping by the state. The person involved, the minor child, has civil rights held in trust for him by God, Whom the state denies and refutes; by his parents, whom the state relegates to a legal non-existence in a court of law, (see parental notification) and finally, by the state who oversees that both God, the child’s Creator, and the child’s parents are fulfilling their appointed roles. Then, and only then, when both God and the child’s parents can no longer fulfill their appointed roles, may the state step in and fulfill both God’s and the parents appointed roles, the state, acting in power of attorney for God and the parents. The state consists and is constituted by men equally created in Justice, love and God’s mercy. In these men, as the state, God operates as well.
    .
    Therefore, in fulfilling God’s appointed rounds, the state acknowledges the presence of God in our midst. Atheism and all that is impure is forfeit in the state by the acknowledgement by the state of God, by the act in power of attorney of God and God-given unalienable civil rights and natural law confirming parental unalienable civil rights.
    .
    In assuming the guardianship of the minor child, the state assumes the power of God and the child’s parents. Now, the state must be held accountable for fulfilling its appointed rounds in protecting the virtue and virginity, the absolute moral and legal innocence into which a child is newly begotten. Protecting the innocence and unalienable natural rights of the minor child is delivering Justice. Justice is the primary obligation of the state as government.
    .
    Pornographers, abortionists, fornicators , liars, thieves and the like are not fulfilling their obligation to do God, the Creator’s work among men, nor fulfilling the state’s appointed rounds in protecting the unalienable civil rights of a minor child and therefore may be considered exiled by their actions.

  • All rapists consider their victims as “things”, “objects” for their abuse, abuse they consider “privilege” coming from them. The rapist’s victims are violated as subhuman, not worthy of their attention. “A life unworthy of life”. Tyrants believe their subjects to be things to be counted, numbered and despoiled of unalienable human rights, possessions and life.
    .
    B4UACT a group of child psychiatrist’s sued in Baltimore court to legalize, rather decriminalize pedophilia, raping children, minor children, who have not yet reached the age of majority, cannot vote, drive a car or serve in the armed forces, but they can be violated in body and soul, despite their sovereign personhood.
    .
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes that a fourteen year old girl ought to have informed sexual consent and a free abortion. Ginsburg is on the Supreme Court. How much Truth, Justice and the American Way can anyone believe will be delivered by a judge so wrong.
    .
    The government has allowed ebola into the country and public schools and now demands that minor children attend such schools. The government has allowed abortion, pornography and rape and now demands that parents surrender their children to such criminal violation of their body and souls. The worst of it, though, is the indoctrination against freedom, the freedom bought and paid for in blood and taxes by the citizen. The indoctrination, programmed and well documented, against freedom by individuals who have sold their soul to the devil and the tyranny of the state as god and master against the taxpaying citizen is establishment of religion by the government.
    Serving the devil as religion is establishing the state as a state religion against the First Amendment.
    .
    Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    .
    The people have a natural right without interference from the state, to educate their offspring.

  • Maria Montessori. on how to educate children.

  • Pingback: The Homeless - BigPulpit.com
  • Homeschooled Catholics are the seeds of decency the renewal of religious life and the birth of a new springtime.

    In two parishes that I’ve attended, one in WI. and my home parish in MI., I am privileged to see this first hand.

  • The children I’ve met who are home schooled are well rounded, emotionally stable, well behaved, respectful, socially adapted, compassionate, able to interact with adults as well as with peers, often surpassing their grade level in reading, math, or science, in general a pleasure to be around. Home-schooled children must meet a certain criteria already established by the public school system, and their progress, or lack thereof, would be clearly visible to such system without automatic psychological testing which assumes all home-schooled children to somehow be impaired or deficient. I’ve heard and read enough to make me think that the Connecticut issue is one more attempt to wrest control over children from their parents, where it rightfully belongs, much like the Communist programming of children in the 1950’s, dangerous.

  • Jules Ferry, the founder of the modern French educational system (widely copied throughout Europe) was simply more candid than most, when he declared the purpose of public education – free, compulsory and lay – was “to cast the nation’s youth in the same mould and to stamp them, like the currency, with the image of the Republic.”

    Ferry, by the by, was no left-winger; quite the contrary. He was the minister of Thiers during the suppression of the Paris Commune and the architect of colonisation in Algeria. As Prime Minister, he was an implacable foe of organized labour and sent anarchists to the guillotine.

  • I forget who I was discussing “no salvation outside the church” but go to the website Catholicism .org click mission and then click outside the church. Also read the Athanasian Creed. I believe the person I was discussing this subject mentioned St. Augustine. He said, ” No man can find salvation save in the Catholic church. Outside the church he can find no salvation.” Of course, those who have never heard the teachings of the church or those who died for the faith but never had a chance to be baptized can be saved.

  • Having lived through how badly the state mangled rather simple education, we’re seeing if we can do better.
    ***
    Joe- I did not “mention” Saint Augustine. I linked to a tract on Catholic.com that quoted him, at length, and several other Church fathers, all disagreeing with your rather special view of salvation.
    You refused to read it.
    It’s very rude to hijack a thread and misrepresent a conversation.

  • On topic:
    There is a major reason that my husband agreed with the notion to home school, even though he was a lot more social than I was; there’s an obligation to take care of yourself as much as possible, and our schools not only don’t support that– they violently oppose that by treating self defense as worse than an unprovoked attack.
    That aspect of “socialization,” along with “actually speak to those not the same age,” are not workable with the current public school system.

  • Foxfier.

    This one is for your family.
    From St. John Leonardi: “Children should be entrusted only to good and God fearing teachers.”

    You and your husband’s notions are gifts from your guardian angels, as well as your intellect.

  • Foxflier, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. The infallible doctrines are not my view, it is the view of several popes who issued the infallible doctrines.
    Secondly, the church fathers’ writings that you mentioned are not infallible church doctrines. As I said, go to Catholicism.org click mission and then click “outside the church”

  • Joe, I do not appreciate thread hijackings. Do not bring your Unam Sanctam hobby horse into unrelated threads. I will not tolerate it, and it will result in your banning from this blog. First and last warning.

  • I apologize Mr McClarey, You are right. This is not the thread for that.

  • You and your husband’s notions are gifts from your guardian angels, as well as your intellect.

    I hope and pray. Part of the appeal of gov’t education is that you can blame someone else if something goes wrong.

  • Foxfier.
    Good point.
    Blame game is todays new theology.

  • Pingback: The Movement the Left Fears Most | The American Catholic | A Roaming Catholic
  • Read An Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. While I don’t agree with him on everything that book is eye-opening.

    I think it’s a good point that “they” think schools are a success and that’s exactly why the schools never improve even with all the money and mindless homage we pay to public schooling.

    Most of us went to public schools and so we know all this stuff they say about their “concerns” over homeschooling is ridiculous even if we haven’t homeschooled or know anyone who has. We know that public schools are much worse!

    I’m tired of the mindless, lockstep accolades we are expected to heap onto the people who run the schools and supposedly educate our kids. The stories are endless about teachers molesting students, kids failing but passing to the next grade, etc, etc, etc. Compare ACT or SAT scores of homeschooled kids with those of the “schooled” kids. Always higher. At 5th grade my homeschooled child had test scores better than half the graduating seniors in our state.

    I know a number of teachers none of whom were education majors in college. They became teachers because they loved their subjects and wanted to share it with others. They are terrific teachers. Several of them had to take education classes to be certified to teach and they readily admit the education classes do not teach one how to teach but how to manage groups of children and to make lesson plans.

    I remember in college how many of my friends who weren’t doing well in their chosen major would switch their major to education. We all understood it was because they couldn’t cut it in their chosen subject. But funny how when we all have children we are lavishing praise on these same people for educating our children! LOL (Oh, I “forgot”–the teacher my child has is wonderful–it’s all the other teachers who aren’t! LOL)

    It’s a rare person who actually knows how to teach.

    I can’t tell you how many people I know who pay for private lessons in some sport where I live and not one of these instructors/coaches has an education degree! That’s right they aren’t certified teachers yet these parents fork over $30-75 per hour to these coaches and instructors. Try having someone like that teach in a public school!! Would never happen because you have to be certified! LOL

    Why anyone would want to institutionalize their child for years and call it education I don’t understand.

A Satire, Not an Instruction Manual

Monday, October 6, AD 2014

Infant’s flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.

Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal (1729)

To sell abortion, arguments about feminism, a woman’s right to choose, equality, freedom, etc., are used for the masses, but the forces that were behind the drive to legalize abortion tended to be clear, at least when talking among themselves, that eugenics was the prime motivation.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 81, remembers those days clearly, and, no doubt to the dismay of many contemporary liberals, tends to be fairly honest about that motivation.  Kevin Williamson at National Review Online examines how the eugenics motivation still is the driving force behind abortion:

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion magazine (maybe it is her celebrated collection of lace collars), reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.

Speaking about such modest restrictions on abortion as have been enacted over the past several years, Justice Ginsburg lamented that “the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women.” Then she added: “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She was correct in her assessment of Roe; the co-counsel in that case, Ron Weddington, would later advise President Bill Clinton: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” by making abortifacients cheap and universally available. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”

In 1980, the punk band the Dead Kennedys released a song called “Kill the Poor.” In it, singer Jello Biafra considers the many benefits to be had from the policy he is singing about: the elimination of “unsightly slums,” the lowering of welfare taxes, reduction of overcrowding, reduction in crime, etc. “The sun beams down on a brand new day,” he declares, “Jane Fonda on the screen today convinced the liberals it’s okay.” To be sure, Mr. Biafra wasn’t singing about abortion; his tongue-in-cheek proposal was for the relatively antiseptic measure of striking poor neighborhoods and housing projects with neutron bombs, eliminating the populations but preserving property values. A ghastly and satirical proposal, to be sure, but not really so different from the case that Justice Ginsburg and others of her ilk make for eliminating those “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“We only whisper it.”

The economist Steven Levitt, for example, has argued that abortion helped to bring down crime rates; that probably isn’t true, but it has not stopped abortion enthusiasts from incorporating crime-reduction into their case for killing the poor. Abortion as a tool of population control remains very much in vogue, particularly with international organizations: “To avoid a world with deteriorating social, economic, and political stability, with the concomitant loss of personal and national security, we must ensure that safe abortion is made available,” writes the American population-control activist and academic Steven Mumford, who also advocates mass sterilizations.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to A Satire, Not an Instruction Manual

  • This calls to mind Sir Dugald Baird’s 1965 paper – A Fifth Freedom? (freedom from “the tyranny of excessive fertility”) in which he complains that “in the second five-year plan for India only $10 million was allocated for population control as against $14 million for malaria control, a measure which, by lowering death rates quickly, could further aggravate the population crisis and reduce the standard of living, in that more capital, skills, and experience are absorbed in looking after children and young people and less is available for industrial development.”

    Such insouciance is remarkable in a medical man (Baird was Regius Professor of Midwifery at Aberdeen University Hospital). He was a leading light, not only of the Abortion Law Reform Association and the Family Planning Association, but of the British Eugenics Society (now the Galton Institute), founded in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society. He delivered the 1970 Galton Lecture on “The Obstetrician & Society.”

    During Baird’s tenure, one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, where he could give his eugenic views free rein, compared to one in 3,750 in Glasgow. Ian Donald, the Regius Professor of Midwifery at Glasgow once sardonically remarked that Baird’s choice of medicine as a career had deprived the cattle industry of a first-class stock-breeder.

    Baird was Sir David Steele’s principle advisor on his 1967 Abortion Bill.

  • This is one fact indisputable; In America, we do not suffer a lack of executioner’s. R. B. Ginsburg being one of the most influential.

    In heaven mansions designated for many have been forfeited by the intended occupants lack of compassion while on earth.

    Pray for their souls, the educated derelict’s that play God.

  • It is important for Catholics in America to educate ourselves concerning this primary ‘force’ in our culture. It is not simply Sanger and Planned Parenthood but many major companies and personages associated with them (both past and present). The power is formidable. The Culture of Death has infested so many levels of our society that it is incredible.

  • Botolph wrote, “The Culture of Death has infested so many levels of our society that it is incredible.” Not least the learned professions.

    Thus, in Scotland, the text-book writers had always acknowledged that an abortion performed in good faith to preserve the life and health of the mother was not criminal. The Crown Office (the prosecuting authority) relied on purely external criteria: consultation with colleagues, a general practitioner, a gynaecologist, a psychiatrist; admission to hospital; observation of the usual ethical procedures, such as a consultant being called in by the general practitioner; the keeping of proper records. Above all, gratuity was regarded as a guarantee of good faith. The actions of a salaried professor or other consultant operating in a public hospital were considered beyond question.
    Thus, the law did not police the medical profession and the medical profession ceased to police itself.

  • I hope it’s okay to place this appeal here.

    Our forty days for life campaign is underway. Hours of prayer before our local P.P. aka Murder Inc., is having an effect around the country. If you haven’t already signed up, please consider it.

    The culture of death can not win, however they can take more babies until the end, so please help with your witness now and shorten the time of this hideous culture.
    Thank you.

  • I join with you Philip in encouraging others to volunteer with 40 Days for Life.

    I am participating in my local campaign as well. May God save the babies and their moms.

  • slainte.
    🙂
    God bless you!

  • Those who reproduce will inherit the Earth and that is exactly what is feared.

  • “The economist Steven Levitt, for example, has argued that abortion helped to bring down crime rates; that probably isn’t true, but it has not stopped abortion enthusiasts from incorporating crime-reduction into their case for killing the poor.”
    .
    Innocent until proven guilty. Habeas Corpus. The Fifth Amendment. The Right to Life. What unalienable human right has abortion not declared null and void.
    .
    Freedom

  • “Thus, in Scotland, the text-book writers had always acknowledged that an abortion performed in good faith to preserve the life and health of the mother was not criminal.”
    .
    The death of the mother must be imminent as proof of the condition. Babies have been brought into the world after being attached to and growing outside of the womb.
    .
    The destruction of the baby’s body is against the law. Destruction of the baby’s character, as destroying the mother, the mother whom the baby caused to be a mother, is not addressed, nor the destruction of civilization caused by the eugenicists is not acknowledged. Who in hell do they think that they are? Which tells us where they come from and what devil is leading the parade.

Various & Sundry, 8/30/13

Friday, August 30, AD 2013

Kevin William’s Modest Proposal

Kevin Williamson thinks Allison Benedikt is right – rich liberals have a moral obligation to send their kids to public school. And he has a way to make it fair.

People hold capital in the form that brings them the best returns, and for the modestly affluent professional class, your lawyers and high-school principals and such, holding capital in the form of a nice house in a neighborhood with good schools provides the maximum return. Ms. Benedikt, savvy social observer that she is, concedes that “rich people might cluster.” (Might?) That the main trend in socioeconomic migration over the last few centuries or so seems to have escaped her here is not my particular concern, but it should be pointed out that the enemies of private education generally fail to consider the extent to which that rich-guy clustering provides advantages beyond high-quality schools. The development of social and professional networks, prestige, learning high-status habits and manners, etc., all are enormously important perks associated with living among the well-to-do. (I believe it was WFB who observed that a sufficiently motivated student could get a Yale-quality education practically anywhere, but that’s not what Yale is for.) The difference between a summer job answering phones at your neighbor’s law firm and a summer job mowing grass (or, more common, no summer job at all) is considerable. Redistributing funds is not sufficient; we have to redistribute people.

What we obviously must do, therefore, is turn rich white liberals out of their homes.

Ideally, they would relocate to the very worst neighborhoods, where, applying the Benedikt principle, they would do the most good. But I do not really care where they go, so long as they go.

Why a medieval peasant got more vacation time than you

They didn’t transfer feasts to Sunday, that’s why.

That said, I wouldn’t volunteer to change places.

Good to see fascism is still alive in Germany

At 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 29, 2013, in what has been called a “brutal and vicious act,” a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, forcibly removing all four of the family’s children (ages 7-14). The sole grounds for removal were that the parents, Dirk and Petra Wunderlich, continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

The children were taken to unknown locations. Officials ominously promised the parents that they would not be seeing their children “anytime soon.”

Just Timberlake as the Riddler?

Couldn’t be any worse than the choice for the next Batman.

Ya Think?

A House panel says that Obama needs Congressional approval before attacking Syria. What, do they think this is a constitutional republic with clearly delineated lines of  authority?

Hot Summer Snark

Larry D announced the winner of the summer’s hottest contest.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Various & Sundry, 8/30/13

  • “The sole grounds for removal were that the parents, Dirk and Petra Wunderlich, continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.”

    I guess they still view kids as property of the Reich.

  • “What we obviously must do, therefore, is turn rich white liberals out of their homes. Ideally, they would relocate to the very worst neighborhoods, where, applying the Benedikt principle, they would do the most good. But I do not really care where they go, so long as they go.”

    We can also have them surrender their jobs to people of color in the interests of affirmative action. Although in regard to the person of color who took the place of Allison Benedikt, it would doubtless be a merit action replacement.

  • Germany’s ban on homeschooling is the silencing of dissent against the inept school system, the propagandizing of the captive audience of minor children without parental consent and the unauthorized usurping of the parents’ role as first educators of their offspring. The state, as an artificial sovereign person constituted by real sovereign persons, the citizens, cannot own or otherwise evict parents of minor children or their rights to dissent from public school for as long as the children remain minors without informed consent to attend, or not, such public school. Such informed consent remains the sole property of the mother and father, offices of vocation of which the newly begotten individual sovereign person makes of a man and a woman when they conceived the new human being.

  • “What we obviously must do, therefore, is turn rich white liberals out of their homes. Ideally, they would relocate to the very worst neighborhoods, where, applying the Benedikt principle, they would do the most good. But I do not really care where they go, so long as they go.”

    Good news.

    In the last two decades, there has been a growth of urban, interracial neighborhoods, of course solidly liberal in their politics. All white neighborhoods have in their voting behavior moved to the Right, indicating that white conservatives are getting their desire to see their liberal neighbors move away.

  • “In the last two decades, there has been a growth of urban, interracial neighborhoods, of course solidly liberal in their politics.”

    It is called gentrification Kurt, meaning poor blacks get out. Your average limousine liberal would sooner eat ground glass than live where poor blacks reside. The largest demographic trend for blacks is blacks moving to the suburban and rural south over the past ten years.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25south.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • Don,

    Yes. White college educated liberals have followed your advice with too much enthusiasm. Though the first to arrive are the first to complain about the neighborhood losing its vibe when more follow your advice.

    And yes, Blacks are moving to certain areas in the South where they and their white neighbors are turning those locales liberal. Seven counties around suburban Atlanta voted for Obama last time around. We used to be lucky to win the city of Atlanta.

    My point remains. Find me a neighborhood that is diverse in race and class and that is where you have the most liberal voting whites. Look at the most conservative voting precincts and there you have the lion’s share of all white housing.

    If it is a singularly liberal principle that we would be a better society if rich and poor; Black and white, were more likely to live side by side, we liberals (though not in my case) have some hypocrisy.

    If that is a universal principle, then we liberals do a better job than our conservative fellow Americans in living that way. Not that we are all are not just a pilgrim people trying to make our way in this fallen world the best we can.

  • “And yes, Blacks are moving to certain areas in the South where they and their white neighbors are turning those locales liberal. Seven counties around suburban Atlanta voted for Obama last time around. We used to be lucky to win the city of Atlanta.”

    Dream on Kurt. The Republican party has never been stronger in the South in regard to Congressional representation and control of state legislatures. In 2012 the Republicans completed the process by taking control of the Arkansas legislature, a legislature controlled by your party since 1874, the end of Reconstruction. Long term if I were a Democrat strategist I would be alarmed rather than heartened by the fact that the South is now home for 57% of the nation’s blacks. I think that their adherence to the Democrat party will weaken over time, as fewer of them remain in urban centers of the North. Additionally their migration makes northern states, look at Michigan, much more competitive for the GOP. We shall see how all this plays out in the years to come.

    “My point remains. Find me a neighborhood that is diverse in race and class and that is where you have the most liberal voting whites.”
    Not really. Racial diversity has long existed in the South in communities where whites vote almost entirely Republican.

    As for liberals and living arrangements, the bluest enclaves in the country, outside of black inner city districts, tend to be rich white urban areas, where almost all racial minorities are effectively kept out due to cost. As the Marxists were wont to say, this is no accident.

  • The Republican party has never been stronger in the South in regard to Congressional representation and control of state legislatures. In 2012 the Republicans completed the process by taking control of the Arkansas legislature, a legislature controlled by your party since 1874, the end of Reconstruction. Long term if I were a Democrat strategist I would be alarmed rather than heartened by the fact that the South is now home for 57% of the nation’s blacks.

    That is true. The Democratic Party is pretty much done for with native southern whites. Our residual support among white rural southerners is kaput. Minorities, native and transplant, as well as transplanted whites will be the only Democratic base in the South and they are growing but along way off from becoming a majority. We’ve seen no data of movement of southern Blacks away from the Democratic Party.

    Additionally their migration makes northern states, look at Michigan, much more competitive for the GOP. We shall see how all this plays out in the years to come.

    Yes, that is an open question. Michigan has an open Senate seat in 2014 which the GOP seems to already have given up on. Not a good sign for them. Minority population growth through birth rates and immigration has been enough that even with Black migration to the South, it has not meant a decline in the minority population in northern states.

    As for liberals and living arrangements, the bluest enclaves in the country, outside of black inner city districts, tend to be rich white urban areas

    I’m looking at my Election Data Services breakdown, as that is what my Republican friends most often use. It shows the predominately white Democratic voting areas to be: 1) Along the Quebec border (ME, NH, VT, NY); 2) Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area; 3) the Upper Midwest dairy region (WI, MN, IA); 4) the Minnesota Iron Range; 5) Eugene, OR; 6) Everything in coastal California.

    I’m looking at the five wealthiest counties that are 70% or more white non-hispanic. Hunterdon (NJ), Douglas (CO), Somerset (NJ) and Morris (NJ) are all deep red. Los Alamos (NM) voted strongly for Obama but has a Republican county government.

    Are you still using Romney’s data guy?

  • “1) Along the Quebec border (ME, NH, VT, NY); 2) Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area; 3) the Upper Midwest dairy region (WI, MN, IA); 4) the Minnesota Iron Range; 5) Eugene, OR; 6) Everything in coastal California.”

    Too broad a focus Kurt. There are plenty of Republicans in all those areas. My focus is on the wealthiest regions of the country, also tending to be the whitest. Obama won eight of ten of the wealthiest counties in the country:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-wins-8-10-wealthiest-154837437.html

  • Too broad a focus Kurt. There are plenty of Republicans in all those areas. My focus is on the wealthiest regions of the country, also tending to be the whitest. Obama won eight of ten of the wealthiest counties in the country

    OK. My wonderful colored coded map gives three shades of blue and three shades of red and those areas all show deep blue. But one could delve deeper.

    Of the ten wealthiest counties in the country, Romney won handsomely in 91% white Huntington (NJ), 93% white Douglas (CO), 70% white Somerset (NJ) and 82% white Morris (NJ). Obama won widely in Los Alamos (NM), Fairfax (VA), Howard (MD), and Arlington (VA). He won narrowly in Loudon (VA). All of these counties have large minority populations, as high as 38% minority in Howard, Arlington, and Fairfax.

    So it seems rich + white votes Romeny. Rich + diverse votes Obama.

  • Actually Kurt, the richest county in the country is Nantucket County in Massachusetts. It is 89% white and went for Obama with 63% of the vote. White and rich is Obama country.

  • While Montgomery, Howard, Arlington, Loudon and Fairfax counties may be considered diverse in the sense that within the sprawling landmasses between the county lines reside pockets of non-whites living in ghettoized communities amongst themselves and middle class whites, the rich (and white and generally liberal) live in quiet seclusion in fortified mansions. So while the public schools of Silver Spring in Montgomery are somewhat diversified, Thurston Abercrombie Smith III of Bethesda will not likely be going to school with anyone named Jorge Valencia.

  • “Thurston Abercrombie Smith III of Bethesda will not likely be going to school with anyone named Jorge Valencia.”

    But of course. Jorge Valencia’s father might be, “shudder”, a Yale man! I am sure Jorge’s mom would be welcome however into Thurston’s home: good maids and nannies are so hard to find for the uber rich.

  • Paul & Don,

    Bethesda Chevy Chase HS is 42% minority. By comparision, North Hunterdon HS in Romney country is 10% minority.

    Again, are you still using Romney’s data guy?

  • Bethesda Chevy Chase HS is 42% minority

    I assure you Thurston Abercrombie Smith III is not attending Bethesda Chevy Chase High School. But keep googling, Kurt. I’m sure eventually you’ll happen upon a tidbit that actually makes it sound like you’re familiar with the subject area.

  • Paul —

    Whatever shortcomings it has, I’m the only one here citing data rather than gut feelings.

    My understanding is that Thurston Abercrombie Smith III lives in Republican Potomac rather than Bethesda and attends the Tridentine Latin Mass in Mongomery County when his driver can’t get him to the Anglican Use service in Baltimore. The only African American he knows is the waiter at the Metropolitan Club.

  • My understanding is that Thurston Abercrombie Smith III lives in Republican Potomac

    Emphasis mine. Yep, you’ve sure got your finger on the pulse of Maryland.

    attends the Tridentine Latin Mass in Mongomery County

    You see Kurt, if you knew anything about the area instead you could have said that he and his driver went to the EF at St. Johns’s, in Virginia because a) it’s actually closer to Potomac, and b) located in a much tonier neighborhood than where the lone regular EF Mass is Montgomery County is celebrated over in Silver Spring.

    I’m the only one here citing data rather than gut feelings

    No Kurt, you’re trying to google your way into being informed about an area of the country I actually live in.

  • Paul —

    We need to get together for drinks as it seems we are neighbors. The Metropoltian Club is near my workplace but they don’t even like me looking at their doors as I walk by. I’m sure you’re a member. Invite me anytime.

  • Kurt – You live in the DC area and call Potomac “Republican”?

  • Apologies Kurt, I thought you lived in the Midwest.

    That said, ditto Pinky.

  • Paul,

    Native of Wisconsin now living in exile. Therefore if you want to buy me that drink it would only need to be a beer.

  • Kurt,

    As long as it’s Leinenkugel and not Miller, that’s cool with me.

Various & Sundry, 8/26/13

Monday, August 26, AD 2013

Bradley Manning Is Not a Woman

Kevin Williamson says what is obvious to most, but is sadly considered controversial considering the number of comments.

Judicial Activism – That Does Not Mean What You Think It Means

Justice Ginsburg – evidently with a straight face, claims that the Roberts court is the most activist in history. Frankly I think the term is misused, but any way you slice it – No.

Miley Cyrus Needs Help

It’s been kind of a fun day on social media seeing both the outrage and the  non-outrage over Miley Cyrus’s VMA performance. I think I saw more tweets and facebook posts from people saying that they’re not going to comment than from people actually commenting. As I said last night on twitter, I’ve basically become my father when it comes to VMAs. That said, it’s led to some hysterical (not in the ha ha sense) tweets. See the RS McCain link, but also check this out.

Lord (do not necessarily) Hear Our Prayer

As always, the USCCB really has its pulse on the issues that really merit out prayers and attention.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Various & Sundry, 8/26/13

Link Roundup

Tuesday, August 13, AD 2013

Because when you go three weeks between blogposts, things sort of build up in the queue.

The Enemy of My Enemy Is Still My Enemy

Typically brilliant insight from Simcha Fisher about the sudden conservative and Christian appreciation for Mother Russia – you know, the authoritarian state run by the corrupt,  narcissistic, kleptomaniac.

Who Knew? The welfare state may not be such a great thing after all.

Fascinating documentary in Great Britain where welfare recipients are forced to live on 1949 allotments. If your primary concern is making sure those on welfare have every last need and want met, then the modern system is the way to go. On the other hand, if you’re into old fashioned concepts such as human dignity, maybe things were better once upon a time.

Voter ID Laws = Jim Crow

Leave it to a mediocre pop artist to really get to the heart of the issue. John Legend has decreed that the newly passed voter ID law in North Carolina is the new Jim Crow. Because having to show a picture of yourself before voting is totally the same as segregated schools.

The Cowardice of the Stupid Party

Republican Congressman would totally love to hold town hall meetings during the summer recess to discuss the immigration bill, but they like got that thing that they gotta do. You know. That thing. Right Vinny?

The Fourth Branch

The usual cheerful article from Kevin Williamson. President Obama has essentially handed over the management of government to bureaucratic functionaries. If anything Williamson undersells the painful reality of life in Washington. Our government is in the hands of well-meaning, well-credentialed, but power-hungry managerial type so perfectly depicted in CS Lewis’s masterpiece, That Hideous Strength. Basically it’s the N.I.C.E. minus the scary head thing. What’s worse is that President Obama is using these agencies to bypass that pesky little thing known as Congress. As Williamson puts it:

IPAB is the most dramatic example of President Obama’s approach to government by expert decree, but much of the rest of his domestic program, from the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law to his economic agenda, is substantially similar. In total, it amounts to that fundamental transformation of American society that President Obama promised as a candidate: but instead of the new birth of hope and change, it is the transformation of a constitutional republic operating under laws passed by democratically accountable legislators into a servile nation under the management of an unaccountable administrative state. The real import of Barack Obama’s political career will be felt long after he leaves office, in the form of a permanently expanded state that is more assertive of its own interests and more ruthless in punishing its enemies. At times, he has advanced this project abetted by congressional Democrats, as with the health-care law’s investiture of extraordinary powers in the executive bureaucracy, but he also has advanced it without legislative assistance — and, more troubling still, in plain violation of the law. President Obama and his admirers choose to call this “pragmatism,” but what it is is a mild expression of totalitarianism, under which the interests of the country are conflated with those of the president’s administration and his party. Barack Obama is the first president of the democracy that John Adams warned us about.

The Worst Decision Ever Made in the Harry Potter Universe

And on a lighter note, a look back at a rather questionable hiring decision.

 

 

Continue reading...

Kevin Williamson: Abortion After Texas

Monday, July 1, AD 2013

At some point I’m sure I’ve read a better post than Kevin Williamson’s today on National Review about abortion. But, for the life of me, not a single one comes to mind.

I guess I’m somewhat obligated to highlight some passage or another, so here it goes:

There are many religious people in the pro-life camp, but it is not a religious question. It is a question about the legal status of an entity that is under any biological interpretation a 1) distinct, 2) living, 3) human 4) organism at the early stages of development. Consider those four characteristics in order: There is no scientific dispute about whether an embryo is genetically distinct from the body in which it resides, about whether the tissue in question is living or not living, about whether the tissue in question is human or non-human, or whether it is an organism as opposed to a part of another organism, like an appendix or a fingernail.

The pro-abortion response to this reality is to retreat into mysticism, in this case the mysterious condition of “personhood.” The irony of this is that the self-professedly secularist pro-abortion movement places itself in roughly the same position as that of the medieval Christians who argued about such metaphysical questions as “ensoulment.” If we use the biological standard, the embryo is exactly what pro-lifers say it is: a distinct human organism at the early stages of development. If we instead decide to pursue the mystical standard of “personhood,” we may as well be debating about angels dancing on the head of a pin.

The main biological question at issue is the question of “viability.” But viability is a standard in motion, thanks in no small part to the fact that in every aspect of medical practice save abortion we prefer scientific standards to mystical ones. And the viability standard is in the end an intellectual dodge as well: You will never discover if an organism is viable by setting out intentionally to kill it.

There is a great deal of vacuity in the debate. The usual pro-abortion platitudes are so far from being intellectually respectable that they are answered only out of a sense of duty, not because they deserve to be answered. “I’m personally against abortion, but . . . ” would rightly be laughed out of existence if it were “I’m personally against murder/slavery/robbery, but . . . ” Which is to say, it is a statement that is defensible only if one assumes beforehand that abortion is not a species of homicide. Similar examples of begging the question include “It’s the woman’s body,” etc. We simply must answer the question — which is a biological question, not a mystical one — of how many bodies there are in question. I count at least two in the case of abortion. “People will still have abortions, only they’ll be dangerous.” People will still commit homicides, and crime would be less dangerous if we disarmed the police and forbade victims to defend themselves. The statement, like the others, makes sense only if we ignore the salient facts of the case.

Now go read the rest. Like right now. Go.

All right. A little more.

Encountering the architectural monuments and administrative sophistication of the Incans and Aztecs, the Europeans were confounded that such marvels could be done by cultures practicing human sacrifice. Huitzilopochtli may have faded away, but career, vanity, and sexual convenience are very much with us, and they, too, are jealous gods, who apparently insist on being served in the same way. The metaphysical explanations may be radically different, but the physical facts of the cases are not entirely dissimilar. If our descendents one day wonder that savages such as ourselves flew to the moon, it will speak well of them, even as they wonder that such brilliant engineers had so impoverished a conception of what it means to be human.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Kevin Williamson: Abortion After Texas

  • I will give that post my highest accolade Paul: it reminds me of the tight reasoning applied by Abraham Lincoln in his writings about slavery:

    “A pro-life legal regime that makes exceptions for rape and incest surely would be preferable to the current open-ended abortion license, but it would be based on a contradiction. In fact, that position, popular though it is, invites the very critique that feminists would like to make. If we are going to protect unborn human lives, then we are going to protect them regardless of the circumstances of their conception. An ethic that makes exceptions because we find no culpability in the mother is uncomfortably close to the feminist caricature of pregnancy being used to punish women for their sexuality. If we have a human life at issue, then we do not permit it to be put to death for the crimes of others. We cannot ignore the ghastliness of a woman’s having to carry to term a child conceived in such conditions, but we cannot in good faith put that unborn child to death — not if we believe that an unborn child is what it is.”

  • You didn’t have to tell me specifically to go read it. Your first two sentences compelled me to. And, yeah.

    I’ve noticed something lately. We’re getting creamed on the social issues, but we’re getting a lot better at discussing them. We’re intellectually being tested in fire.

    Once Bill Buckley was asked if he could imagine a time when Christian life would stand out in a crowd. He said that on the one hand, it’d be wonderful, but on the other hand, it would be awful.

  • Pingback: St Bonaventure on Beautiful Representations of Devils - BigPulpit.com

An Act of Heroism or A Petty Crime?

Monday, May 20, AD 2013

Last week Kevin Williamson did something I have often dreamed of doing, although to people talking or texting on cell phones while driving and not in a movie theater.

The show was Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812, which was quite good and which I recommend. The audience, on the other hand, was horrible — talking, using their phones, and making a general nuisance of themselves. It was bad enough that I seriously considered leaving during the intermission, something I’ve not done before. The main offenders were two parties of women of a certain age, the sad sort with too much makeup and too-high heels, and insufficient attention span for following a two-hour musical. But my date spoke with the theater management during the intermission, and they apologetically assured us that the situation would be remedied.

It was not. The lady seated to my immediate right (very close quarters on bench seating) was fairly insistent about using her phone. I asked her to turn it off. She answered: “So don’t look.” I asked her whether I had missed something during the very pointed announcements to please turn off your phones, perhaps a special exemption granted for her. She suggested that I should mind my own business.

So I minded my own business by utilizing my famously feline agility to deftly snatch the phone out of her hand and toss it across the room, where it would do no more damage. She slapped me and stormed away to seek managerial succor. Eventually, I was visited by a black-suited agent of order, who asked whether he might have a word.

The reaction has been fascinating. While a great many have applauded Williamson for his bit of cell phone vigilantism, others have been far less sympathetic and indeed think he should be brought up on charges. Personally, I called him a hero on facebook.

But is he really a hero? Technically this was destruction of personal property. While the woman was certainly rude, lack of social grace does not negate the right to property.

On one level, it’s difficult to disregard that Williamson did act in an almost (or maybe not even almost) illegal fashion, and he himself was guilty of causing a disturbance. At the same time, the absolute lack of proper etiquette is becoming a growing concern in modern society. My wife and I rarely attend movies largely due to the fact that we have small children and babysitting is expensive. Yet were it not for the children we still would likely have cut back on our movie-going as it had become something of a tedium. I vividly recall attending the third installment of the Pirates of Caribbean franchise. The sheer awfulness of the film was compounded by the sheer awfulness of the crowd attending, largely populated by shrieking girls gawking at Orlando Bloom. Cell phone abuse was hardly the biggest issue with this crowd.

All the same, the reason that so many view Williamsom with admiration is that he confronted rudeness head-on. Instead of bellyaching later in a blogpost about the obnoxious woman sitting next to him, he actually did something about it. Though the action itself is of dubious ethical value, it was an action, and in world of words any actions taken to tackle social problems seem much more meritorious.

There are obvious concerns with Williamson’s actions being replicated on a larger scale, so we should probably not completely encourage such behavior. That being said, I have a difficult time not applauding Williamson for doing what so many of us have yearned to do.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to An Act of Heroism or A Petty Crime?

  • Amy Alkon has the right approach to this sort of blatant rudeness. You don’t tear the cell phone from a woman’s hand and smash it against a wall. You calmly, but forcefully, demand to know what this woman has done that has earned her the right to ruin your evening with her intrusive and socially unacceptable behavior. You speak just loudly enough that everyone around her can hear, and you let her know in no uncertain terms that her behavior is unacceptable, rude, and selfish. And if she doesn’t stop from the shame (if she has no shame), then you get the usher and ask that she be escorted out.

  • He had informed theater management, and they were unresponsive. Also, he basically tried Alkon’s approach and got a snicker in response, so I doubt that would have been much more effective.

  • The woman’s actions destroyed the property of others– that was not a cheap show she was disrupting; management failed greatly when they chose to ignore her actions, and should have been held responsible for failing to provide reasonable protection of their product.
    It’s sad that one of their customers had to act to preserve the product they were selling.

  • Two words: Air Horn.

  • You don’t teach manners by being ill-mannered. It’s the theater’s duty to provide a suitable atmosphere – if they fail to do so after you complain, then you should demand your money back or a ticket to a future show. Far less satisfying, I know.

    There’s another problem with the story. Williamson said that they were talking and using their phones, and when he asked a woman to stop using her phone, she said to stop looking. There’s no indication that anyone was talking on their phones. Using a phone is a much less serious breach of etiquette than talking on a phone.

  • I agree, Pinky, but using a phone is still pretty bad in the context of live theater. Moreover, there is no excuse for refusing to behave when asked. I’m not thrilled with Williamson’s response, but I’d invite him into my living room before her any day.

  • Oh, come on. How are we supposed to determine guilt or innocence in this day and age without knowing the skin tones and ethnic backgrounds of the participants? Didn’t you people get the memo?

  • Williamson bought and paid for a product as advertized. It is up to the management to deliver and make the woman with the phone leave. It is Wiliamson’s call, no one else’s. A nice lawsuit for damages; not only the cost of the show, but time, travel expenses and aggravation as well as the dinner they could not swallow. Next time the offenders will be removed.

  • What if there hadn’t been a phone, so no device to grab, and she’d just been talking? Would it have been okay to snatch her purse? Or punch her in the face?

    Nope. He acted like a two-year-old. Ask the management for your money back, like a grown-up. Or get up and find another seat.

    The reason he got lots of approval from his audience? Because the public is full of people who also act like two-year-olds, when they can get away with it. “But it was popular” is hardly an argument for the rightness of a thing.

Who's Gonna Grab the Third Rail?

Tuesday, August 10, AD 2010

That’s a line from a brief but astounding post by Kevin Williamson of NRO, which I’m reproducing in full here:

A little perspective from the debt commission:

“The commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. ‘The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans — the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries,’ [Alan] Simpson said.”

Three programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — consume 100 percent of federal revenue, and everything else is paid for with borrowed money.  This is why we cannot balance the budget by cutting military spending, foreign aid, food stamps, etc. There is not going to be a serious project to address our deficit/debt problem without deep, painful entitlement reform, and the longer we wait to admit that fact and get going on it, the worse it is going to be.

So, who’s gonna grab that third rail? George W. Bush tried and got hammered — an example that few if any in Washington are eager to follow.

Indeed. I think if this is going to happen, it’s going to have to come from the people (tea parties, perhaps?), because it seems suicidal for any politician to take it on without considerable popular support.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Who's Gonna Grab the Third Rail?

  • Really? So FICA and Medicare withholding represent the entire federal revenue stream? Whatever happened to the federal income tax and other revenue sources?

    The reality is that we are being set up. The federal government is looking for ways to default on what it owes and it will be far easier to default on what it owes its own people through social security than what it owes foreign banks. Defaulting on foreign loans will affect its credit rating and ability to further borrow while leaving retirees high and dry will just hurt retirees.

  • Finaly someone has outlined the major problem of our deficit spending..Without borrowed money in the term of t notes, we would be bankrupted in regards to income. IT IS TIME for means testing and benefits of those who really do not need SS survie. A cap on those with a certain substainable income need to be removed from SS and Medicare needs to have a schedule of benefits and of premium cost similar to the income tax tables based on 1040 results of income each year to determine premiums and benefits. There will be the normal hue and cry, but our representatives need the backbone to make it happen.

  • They will never solve anything.

    Nearly that entire first paragraph is incorrect. SS and Medicare are (even today) fully funded out of specific FICA and Medicare taxes, not out of general (personal and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, etc.) tax revenues. In fact, the SS surpluses are spent in vote-buying gov programs, and the SS trust fund gets in return nonpublic US debt instruments that can only be repaid from new taxes. The fit hits the shan when the SS taxes paid in are insufficient to pay SS (30,000,000 baby boomer) benefits and the guv needs to tax we the people to repay worthless debt to pay SS beneficiaries.

    I’m too depressed to continue.