The summit collapse - initial thoughts

Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute saw this coming a few days ago.

Kim sees his nuclear program as essential to his ability to have influence on the world stage. And, like his summit counterpart, the Very Stable Genius, he doesn't take Kindly to gestures of disrespect, which is how he views sanctions.

So he basically said to the VSG, when the terms - get rid of your program, and then we lift sanction - became clear, "You have that backwards, pal."

Donald Trump's talks with Kim Jong-un ended abruptly on Thursday as the president said he was forced to walk away after the North Korean dictator demanded that all sanctions be lifted in return for giving up only some of his nukes.

Trump said the final snag that caused the sudden breakdown was over sanctions – and Kim's push to have all of them lifted in exchange for a concession Trump and his secretary of state could not live with.  

But right now I have a question for the shills and throne-sniffers, who got all gooey in the britches over the prospect of a new era of unicorns and rainbows (including most definitely Sean Hannity, who was dripping his bodily fluids all over the scenic parks of Hanoi): Can we finally jettison the talk of 5-D chess?

Conservatives with their heads on straight have always understood that obsequious appeasement of rogue-state dictators always ups the danger level. It's why we had a Cold War with the Soviet Union. It's why it was widely understood that the JCPOA was a disaster. (And take a moment to note that the current president - he of this collapsed summit - had the good sense and courage to get out of that deal. Exhibit A in the case for his complete lack of a set of guiding foreign-policy principles, and lack of consistency more generally.)

If you want to just consider his inconsistency within the parameters of North Korea policy, consider that he has surrounded himself with advisors who well understand the principle state above, about dealing with rogue-state dictators, and has then proceeded to exhibit behavior we've always found disgusting and alarming in leftist peaceniks, and, until the advent of the VSG phenomenon, would never have tolerated in a Republican president. (The closest we came to doing so was Bush 43 and the utterly useless Six-Way Talks, but I know I personally was not on board with that program.)

I mean, "beautiful letter," "talented leader loved by his people," "warm relationship" - this is VSG-style winging it in the most flamboyant manner.

And now it appears we may be back to the basic situation we've been dealing with for decades.

Brad Thor's tweet sums up the essence of the problem succinctly:

Doesn't read his briefing reports, doesn't listen to experts, and thinks his "gut" is better-tuned than everyone else's"brains." What a narcissistic amateur.

The shills argue that the VSG has always been a doer, not a reader, and that that's what makes him such a refreshing figure on the scene, able to take unorthodox approaches and get surprising results.

Except, at least in this case, the result was not surprising at all.

Why haven't I blogged about the Cohen hearing yet?

I'm not sure.

They say that if you want to know what someone is really focused on, watch what that person does. It just hasn't interested me nearly as much as the developments I have blogged about recently. The accelerate rate of our culture's rot is the top story right now, I'd say.

Jim Geraghty at NRO had it right this morning: The whole thing is peopled by a a brood of vipers. There are no good guys. Cohen has perjured himself, as well as run a taxi-medallion scheme and cheated on his taxes. And none of this would be happening if the Very Stable Genius had kept his pants zipped in 2006, when he carried on simultaneous affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, weeks after his wife had given birth to his first son with her. (He, of course, has older kids by each of his previous wives.) And the questioners are each trying to score points for their brand.

LITD also resonates with Guy Benson's tweets about it:

The president’s ethics are poor. The portrait/straw purchaser allegation (w/ documentation) is an almost-comical vignette of petty ego & ethical bankruptcy. The Stormy hush payments seem undeniable. I’m dubious that they constitute a crime that justifies impeachment.

People who love Trump will furiously dismiss virtually all of what Cohen is saying as self-serving sour grapes & pandering to the opposition. Those who hate Trump will eagerly lap up every scathing word and anecdote.

Actually, if one steps back, it's possibly to view gotcha government like we're seeing displayed here as a level on which cultural rot manifests itself. In addition to the pressing matter of this cultural rot, there are all the world-stage developments I listed yesterday. And we choose to focus on this preen-fest peopled by scalawags? How did we get here?

So, somebody give be a heads up when something earth-shaking comes out of this. In the meantime, I'm seeing fires burst out all over the place.

Get your kids out of government schools - today's edition

So these people whose exotic sex lives are their main common bond are now such a recognized demographic group that we're going to study their history as such - and if you have your kid in a government school in New Jersey, he or she will be made to study it.

New Jersey has become the second state in the nation after California to adopt a law that requires schools to teach about LGBT history in a move hailed by civil rights groups as a step toward inclusion and fairness.
Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat who promised to promote equality for gay and transgender people during his campaign, signed the bill Thursday. Among those celebrating the news was Jaime Bruesehoff of Vernon, whose 12-year-old transgender child, Rebekah, spoke in support of the bill in Trenton in December.
“This bill is so important for our young people,” Bruesehoff said. “They need to see examples of themselves in the history being taught and in classes they are going to each day. We know representation matters.
“By learning about LGBTQ people who have made amazing contributions to their country, they are seeing possibilities for themselves and hope for the future,” she said.

Not everyone is on board:

Conservative organizations have opposed proposals to teach gay and transgender history, saying such requirements take away power from parents and may encourage kids to question their sexuality.
Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said he opposed the bill because it infringed on parents’ rights.
“We believe it further erodes the right of parents to discuss this sensitive issue with their children, if in fact schools are going to be promoting and making the claim that this particular person was an LGBTQ member,” he said.

Deo said individuals should be included in lessons based on achievements without discussion of sexual orientation. He noted that New Jersey already has what many education experts consider the strongest anti-bullying law in the country. 

I'm actually not big on any kind of history on the basis of demographic classification. This, for instance, is Black History Month - I think, anyway; isn't it in February? - but I think it's a bad idea. If, in the course of studying history, we celebrate the achievements of heroic, or inventive, or visionary people, shouldn't it be on the basis of them as individuals? Is Joan of Arc's race or sexual orientation the first thing you think about when she comes to mind? The barons who drafted the Magna Carta? Alexander the Great?

And in this case, it's going to perpetuate the notion that there is more future in being a victim than in being a hero. Not the way to form a healthy worldview in a young person.

And what happens the first time a Christian kid raises her hand and says, "Are we going to learn anything about the church's stance throughout history that homosexuality is a sin and that there are only two genders?"

Here's the sentence in this article that will hopefully spur lots of parental action in the Garden State:

The law does not apply to private schools.

It damn well better not, if the word "private" still means anything in post-America.

The United Methodists' surprising - and positive - move - and the immediate resistance to it

I'm not a Methodist on paper, but for the last five years I've attended a small country Methodist church. I got started because a former community-college student of mine was the minister, and I checked him out and was blown away by his sermon. He's since been moved to a big-city congregation, but I've stayed. I don't have a clear feel for the leanings on matters of doctrine and ideology of the minister we've had since last summer (the former pastor was a staunch traditionalist, another level on which we bonded), but he's a nice enough fellow. I've become increasingly involved and now even serve on a committee.

That former minister had told me that he looked for the UMC to split in two at some point. For now, unity seems to be holding sway, but I think his prognosis will still be borne out.

This move did not sail through. Quite the contrary.

Delegates to the United Methodist Church Conference voted today. They voted to strengthen certain prohibitions regarding declared and practicing homosexuals from serving in the Church Leadership and to prohibit the sanctification of same-sex marriage.
As noted in The Atlantic, this result came as complete surprise, especially to the Church Bishops, who had determined a fore-ordained result, just not this particular one.

At a special conference in St. Louis this week, convened specifically to address divisions over LGBT issues, members voted to toughen prohibitions on same-sex marriage and LGBT clergy. This was a surprise: The denomination’s bishops, its top clergy, pushed hard for a resolution that would have allowed local congregations, conferences, and clergy to make their own choices about conducting same-sex marriages and ordaining LGBT pastors.

The Mandarins pushed hard, but came up short. And, as always when defeated at the ballot box, the leftists turned ugly. The below is just part of the Ugly. I watched a live stream of the event. When faced with ballot box defeat, these leftists were anything but Christian in their responses.

In the final hours of the conference on Tuesday, the debate turned acrimonious: One delegate alleged, without clear evidence, that people at the conference were bribing others for votes. Another speaker’s mic was silenced when he threatened to filibuster any vote before the end of the day. And the debate came to an abrupt halt: Delegates had to clear out of the conference hall so that it could be turned over for a monster-truck rally.

And, as is the case with the Left in any realm in post-American society, they don't accept outcomes other than the ones they insist on:

Below are the most important paragraphs from the article.

Some Methodists, however, seem determined to keep fighting this battle within their denomination. “I am a 32-year-old, and I am one of the youngest delegates here. For a denomination who claims so desperately to want young people in our churches, maybe we need to reevaluate,” said Alyson Shahan, a delegate from Oklahoma, who seemed to support LGBT inclusion in the denomination. “This body is not where the disciple-making happens. Thank the good Lord, am I right?”

There will be another General Conference again in 2020, where any of these issues or proposals can be taken up again. “With the traditional plan that adds teeth, you’ve not only alienated progressives, but also centrists,” said Hamilton. “Do you think these churches will quietly accept this regressive, traditional plan with teeth? Will these churches protest less, or more, for LGBTQ persons in the future?”

“You’ve inspired an awful lot of people who were not really engaged in this struggle before,” Hamilton said. “And for that, I thank you.”

So once again, we are at the crossroads of sound doctrine versus feelings, of biblical inerrancy versus "truth" made up out of whole cloth.

If this should lead to a split, it will be interesting to see which branch grows the fastest. 

 

If you're a Democrat and a decent person, you need to leave that evil party - today's edition

Not only do Democrats celebrate the popping of a hole in a person's skull and vacuuming her brains out - and / or pulling her limbs off her torso - they are also cool with leaving utterly helpless and innocent people to die when it would be quite simple and routine to get them what they need to survive:

By a vote of 53-44, the Senate has failed to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after an attempted abortion procedure. The bill — sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) and cosponsored by 49 of his fellow Republican senators — needed 60 votes to overcome the legislative filibuster.

Just three Democratic senators crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in favor of the legislation: Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Doug Jones (Ala.).

All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Three Republican senators did not vote on the bill: Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Tim Scott (S.C.). According to their communications directors, both Cramer and Scott missed the vote due to flight delays.

During the floor debate over the bill this afternoon, several Democratic senators said they planned to oppose the legislation because they believe it limits women’s health-care options. “That is the actual intent of this bill, reducing access to safe abortion care would threaten the health of women in Hawaii,” said Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii).

“This bill is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women’s health,” said Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.).

Tina Smith, Democrat of Minnesota, said the born-alive bill “would override physicians’ professional judgment about what is best for their patients, and it would put physicians in the position of facing criminal penalties if their judgment about what is best for their patient is contrary to what is described in this bill.” 

Consider this latest lurch even further to the nihilist left in light of what AOC had to say in that video she made while preparing dinner in her kitchen - the remark that young people are probably wondering whether it's worth it to have kids, given the pretty-much inevitable slide of Earth and all organisms on it to utter destruction.

As Marina Melvin at Townhall explains, Dems have been laying this groundwork for some time:

In 2009, Hillary Clinton praised a politician for noting "it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."

AOC and Clinton are not alone. Many Democrats believe that birth control and abortion should be widely encouraged as a means to combat bad weather. 

Back in 2014, The Atlantic published an article entitled, “The Climate-Change Solution No One Will Talk About,” arguing not only that humans are causing weather changes, but the solution to the weather changes caused by the adults is to stop babies from being born. Inverse published a copy-cat article with similar arguments in 2018. Vox joined in and argued that its racist to say that all people should have to stop birthing babies, and that only the rich should stop having babies because they are the ones more responsible for these weather problems. Vox also went on to propose that the rich should be eliminated altogether so that the climate problem might self-solve. 

The cat's out of the bag. Democrats view human life - your life - as utterly disposable. You know what that strongly implies, don't you? That the human soul is an imaginary concept.

To Democrats, there's no good reason not to squish you like a gnat if it serves the collectivist vision.

Donald Trump has a number of objectionable traits, but neither he nor any other Republican seeks to impose this nightmare program on post-America.

We're looking at one busy world stage in late February 2019

There is today's second summit between Kim and the VSG:

Although many experts are skeptical Kim will give up the nuclear weapons he likely sees as his best guarantee of continued rule, there was a palpable, carnival-like excitement among many in Hanoi as the final preparations were made for the meeting. There were also huge traffic jams in the already congested streets.
Officials in Hanoi said they only had about 10 days to prepare for the summit — much less than the nearly two months Singapore had before the first Trump-Kim meeting last year— but still vowed to provide airtight security for the two leaders.
“Security will be at the maximum level,” Vietnamese Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Le Hoai Trung told reporters.
The ultra-tight security will be appreciated by North Korean authorities, who are extremely vigilant about the safety of Kim, the third member of his family to rule the North with absolute power. Kim’s decision to take a train, not a plane, may have been influenced by the better ability to control security.
Vietnam is eager to show off its huge economic and development improvements since the destruction of the Vietnam War, but the country also tolerates no dissent and is able to provide the kind of firm hand not allowed by more democratic potential hosts.

Tensions flare between India and Pakistan in the wake of the recent car-bombing death of 40 Indian soldiers in Kashmir. The latest:

Pakistan’s military spokesman, Maj. Gen Asif Ghafoor, said Indian planes crossed into the Muzafarabad sector of Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. He said Pakistan scrambled fighters and the Indian jets “released payload in haste” near Balakot.
India’s foreign secretary, Vijay Gokhale, told reporters in New Delhi that Indian fighter jets targeted Jaish-e-Mohammad camps in a pre-emptive strike after intelligence indicated another attack was being planned.

There will surely be more elucidation regarding this development:

The resignation of Iran’s most famous diplomat and the man often seen as the foreign face of Tehran [foreign minister Muhammad Javad Zarif], has plunged Iran’s highest levels of government and media into a momentary sense of bewilderment and lack of certainty. It illustrates not only the differences within the regime but also the ability of news organizations in Tehran to gather news with some levels of independence, more than in other totalitarian regimes. The Iranian Students News Agency, for instance, provides a discussion about various “sources” close to Zarif and President Hasssan Rouhani’s office.

US Vice President Mike Pence met with the Venezuelan president that the US recognizes, Juan Guaido, in Bogota, Colombia yesterday.  Pence announced more sanctions against the on-the-ropes outlaw regime of Maduro, as well as aid for neighboring countries dealing with an influx of desperate Venezuelans.

This is a welcome development:

Britain said on Monday it plans to ban all wings of Hezbollah due to its destabilizing influence in the Middle East, classing the Lebanese Islamist movement as a terrorist organization.

In a world such as this, it behooves post-America to have its wits about it. We shall see if it is up to the task. We certainly have some good folks on the case. I do wish Nikki Haley was still officially involved, but I think the tone she set will still drive policy to some degree.

Barney and Clyde - the first podcast

Didn't seem to embed via the "share" function at Youtube, so here's the link.

We intend to tape an installment every two weeks. The setting: the bar in my basement at the opposite end of the big room from my office (with my study and music-rehearsal space in between).



Much is still fluid. The current name, Barney & Clyde, isn't too bad, but we're not married to it. We like these segments - the Hyperbolic Chamber, Old News (items that have moved off the radar, but merit another look), the Local Angle (stories from the area in which we live that have broader ramifications) - but may tweak them or add to them as we go along.



Your input is welcome.

Stopping the advance of the rot on a key front: the Indiana hate-crimes bill

Two recent items in two of my email accounts (and that's not all I have; when you're a freelancer, you have myriad types of online communication to stay on top of) make for an interesting juxtaposition.

In my general-purpose Yahoo account, this morning I got the latest e-newsletter from Robert Hall, leader of Indiana Conservative Alliance. It included this update on SB12:

It's been an amazing week with lots of ups and downs.  It started a week ago Friday when we heard about the committee hearing on Monday for SB12, the Hate Crimes Bill with a list of identity groups.  We scrambled and contacted the Rs on the committee.  On Monday morning, we had 11 from the Indiana Conservative Alliance testify in the Senate chamber.  The committee passed SB12 by a vote of 9-1.  We were down.
 
On Tuesday, the full Senate debated SB12 (2nd Reading) and it was amended 36-13 with a bold move by Sen Aaron Freeman.  He amended it by gutting the original SB12 and replacing with the addition of two words to the current Code.  The words "including bias" were added to the section about sentencing.  That is consistent with the Witmer court decision.  So SB12 does not change anything but can claim to use bias in sentencing.  Here is the key section:
 
“IC 35-38-1-7.1(c):  The criteria listed in subsections (a) and (b) do not limit matters, including bias, that the court may consider in determining the sentence.”
 
The more I learned about what happened Tuesday the more I realize how much of a win it was for our side.  Politically, it is also good for our side.  An awful bill was defeated.  It is something that we can claim victory for.  And doing so gives us more political clout with the R legislators.  It embarrassed the governor and could force him to sign it.  He was unhappy after Tuesday.  So we were upbeat.
 
Then on Thursday the Senate considered SB12 as amended (3rd Reading) and approved it 39-10.  Now it goes to the House.  More upbeat.
 

It also included Hall's testimony to the state Senate:

My name is Robert Hall.  I am leader of the Indiana Conservative Alliance, a group of 80 top conservative leaders in the state.  I am also a Republican precinct committeeman and a township board member.
 
SB12 is unnecessary and unconstitutional. 
 
Indiana Code amply covers civil and criminal offenses that may be committed against Hoosiers by means of physical action, rather than thoughts and words.
 
Hate crimes legislation violates the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying a person equal protection of the laws.  It treats thoughts and beliefs more harshly for some than for others. 
 
Hate crimes legislation violates Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution by restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely, on any subject whatsoever.  Furthermore, privileges and immunities, do not equally belong to all citizens.
 
With hate crimes laws the presumption of innocence is undermined from the outset when an accused person is different than the victim.
 
Indiana Code already gives the court wide latitude when imposing sentences, considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
 
Furthermore, there is no evidence that hate crimes are not being adequately prosecuted and sentenced in Indiana already.
 
As a former management consultant familiar with the site selection process, these decisions are made on economics not on the existence of a hate crimes law.
 
Therefore, SB12 is unnecessary and unconstitutional.  Please vote NO.
 
Finally, as an elected Republican precinct committeeman, I am concerned that if this bill passes the conservative base will not vote for Governor Holcomb for reelection next year.  It could even hurt other Republican candidates.

Then in my radio-station email there was this press release from the Indiana Democratic Party:

INDIANAPOLIS – First-term Governor Eric Holcomb made passing a bias crimes initiative a pillar of his legislative agenda. In January, Holcomb carved out a serious position for himself in the hate crimes debate, claiming he would play an ‘uber’ role in lobbying the legislature. On Tuesday, members of his own party gutted a Senate proposal that included specific protections for gender identity and sexual orientation – language Holcomb backed. Did Holcomb whisk Republicans off the Senate floor in an attempt to sway their vote? Indiana Democratic Party Chairman John Zody blasted Holcomb for looking outgunned and unable to influence the direction of the party he leads. 

“Leaders find a way to bridge the divide and get things done. Holcomb’s leadership on hate crimes looks more like a disappearing act,” said Zody. “When he was needed most, Holcomb either lacked the influence in his own Party to get this over the goal line or vanished. Either way, Holcomb looks like a lightweight, unable to get the job done. Indiana Democrats will continue to fight until every Hoosier is protected safely and equally under Indiana law." 

These divergent perspectives serve as a microcosm for the completely opposite way conservatives and leftists approach anything and everything. These Dems presume that the Governor has some kind of responsibility to drag an identity-politics bill over the finish line. He promised to "influence the direction of the party he leads"! 

And it sounds like he did indeed try way too hard to come off like a "good guy" who really swallowed that stuff about how not every Hoosier is presently "protected safely and equally under that law."

Per Hall's update, what really happened was that engaged citizens who are really and truly interested in equal protection focused on the relevant players - the legislators who needed to be on record as seeing that this bill opens the door wide to potential granting of special status to particular crime victims based on their demographic. Lady Justice's blindfold could begin slipping.

And Hall actually points out that the positive direction that action on this bill is taking will, if it continues, save Holcomb's political bacon.

Moral of the story: persuasively staying in touch with legislators can be an effective weapon in the war for our civilization's soul.

Michael Steele descends into moral rot on live television

He really said this:

Michael Steel showed no . . . restraint in a TV appearance Friday:

“These are his people. And he’s not going to thank law enforcement because he’s probably not happy about what law enforcement did.” Seriously? Trump isn’t happy with the FBI because they thwarted a domestic terror attack by a white supremacist, i.e., “his people”?

To spew something so purely speculative, so foul with the stench of insinuation, at a moment when this nation is trying to sort out truth from lies in a number of identity-politics situations, is the height of irresponsibility.

He knowingly and willfully poisoned the national atmosphere.

What got into this guy? It's one thing to find Donald Trump objectionable on many levels. LITD does.

But to let loose with a remark like this is unconscionable.

Michael Steele has disqualified himself from any further participation in the realm of acceptable discourse.

UPDATE: some tweets:

Liz Wheeler:

What is WRONG with these people?!

Michael Steele says Trump probably wasn't happy the FBI stopped a white nationalist from killing liberals & media people.

MSNBC host: "That's a brave thing to say."

No, that's an insane, dangerous, false thing to say.

Steve Cortes:

.@MichaelSteele has lost his mind. How could a “news” organization allow such scurrilous slander to go unchallenged on-air?

Also, really tired of leftists like Steele & @NicolleDWallace constantly conflating white supremacy w/ American nationalism, which has ZERO to do with race 

Mark Levin:

He was arrested under the Trump administration you idiot. And now he’ll be prosecuted under the Trump administration. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-rnc-chief-michael-steele-shreds-trump-for-not-condemning-arrested-coast-guard-lt-these-are-his-people/ 

… 

Your must-read for the weekend

Wilfred Reilly, political science professor at Kentucky State University, has a column today at USA Today that needs to be part of every conversation about hate crimes and race relations generally in this country, particularly among state legislatures trying to craft and pass bills about it.

His launching point, understandably, is the Smollett case. As he shows, it does not exist in isolation.

That this case turned out to be a hoax shouldn't come as too big of a shock. A great many hate crime stories turn out to be hoaxes. Simply looking at what happened to the most widely reported hate crime stories over the past 4-5 years illustrates this: not only the Smollett case but also the Yasmin Seweid, Air Force Academy, Eastern Michigan, Wisconsin-Parkside, Kean College, Covington Catholic, and “Hopewell Baptist burning” racial scandals all turned out to be fakes. And, these cases are not isolated outliers.
Doing research for a book, Hate Crime Hoax, I was able to easily put together a data set of 409 confirmed hate hoaxes. An overlapping but substantially different list of 348 hoaxes exists at fakehatecrimes.org, and researcher Laird Wilcox put together another list of at least 300 in his still-contemporary book Crying Wolf. To put these numbers in context, a little over 7,000 hate crimes were reported by the FBI in 2017 and perhaps 8-10% of these are widely reported enough to catch the eye of a national researcher.

And what are the stats regarding crimes where bigotry was an actual motive?

. . . hate crime hoaxers are “calling attention to a problem” that is a very small part of total crimes. There is very little brutally violent racism in the modern USA. There are less than 7,000 real hate crimes reported in a typical year. Inter-racial crime is quite rare; 84% of white murder victims and 93% of Black murder victims are killed by criminals of their own race, and the person most likely to kill you is your ex-wife or husband. When violent inter-racial crimes do occur, whites are at least as likely to be the targets as are minorities. Simply put, Klansmen armed with nooses are not lurking on Chicago street corners. 

Have this information committed to memory and ready to use in conversations where the direction of public policy is at stake.

Do not let the agents of falsehood advance their vile cause.

The kids are merely pawns; the agenda is set way up the chain

This story is getting remarked upon:

The Sunrise Movement (whatever that is) and their supporters are enraged that their publicity stunt in Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office didn’t result in her worshipping “the children,” telling them they’re the future, and promising to vote for AOC’s “Green New Deal” right away! According to them, that makes DiFi smug and disrespectful. Many other viewers, though, think DiFi is dropping a truth bomb on their guilt parade.

[In the Sunrise Movement video] the children (who should be the ones solving the world’s problems since they’re only tainted by false science and propaganda and not by oil and gas money) impishly present their letter to Sen. Feinstein. When Feinstein kindly responds that she has her own Green New Deal, and that it’s not going to get turned around in the 10 or 12 years, the children are shocked almost into silence. 

A young woman with the group interrupts Feinstein, saying:

“Senator, if this doesn’t get turned around in 12 years, you’re looking at the faces of the people who are going to be living with these consequences.”

Now the younger children know it’s okay to disrespect the Senator, so they jump right in.

“And the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people and…”

Feinstein’s already had enough of their rudeness and inability to have an actual conversation.

“You know what’s interesting about this group is, I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing. You come in here and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don’t respond to that. Ive gotten elected. I just ran. I was elected by almost a million vote plurality, and I know what I’m doing. So, you know, maybe people should listen a little bit.”

The whiny young woman then tells Feinstein that “we’re the people who elected you,” so she has to listen to them – which is what she’s doing. Feinstein asks how old the young woman is. When she replies, “16,” Feinstein retorts, “Then you didn’t elect me.” That is not the response the group was looking for.
A younger child then says repeatedly, in a finger-wagging tone:

“It doesn’t matter. We’re gonna be the ones who are impacted.

The whining teenager continues to simultaneously beg and shame Feinstein while the younger children spout memorized talking points.

“There is enormous popularity for this bill around the whole country, and we’re asking you to be brave…”

Well, if it’s so popular, why would she need to be brave to vote for it? Feinstein assured them that she was “trying to do the best” she can, and that was “to write a responsible solution.” It’s almost certain that conservatives won’t agree with that Feinstein’s solution is responsible, but at least she has the sense to not get attached to AOC’s drivel.
That didn’t sit well with the whiny older teen.

“Any plan that does not take bold, transformative action is not gonna be what we need!”

As a mother and a grandmother, Feinstein’s dealt with emo teenage girls before. She replied:

“Well, you know better than I do, so I think one day you should run for the Senate. And then you can do it your way.”

The first 90 seconds of the video are hilarious, and then the incessant whining makes it nearly intolerable. Sen. Feinstein is no friend of conservatism, but she tried to teach these young people a few lessons about how the world really works. It’s a shame that they won’t listen. 

Indeed. Feinstein undeniably has a few scummy stunts on her track record, but she deserves a hearty good-on-ya for the way she handled this.

Television pundit and former teacher and high school dean Jedidiah Bila's tweet about this indicates she's familiar with this scenario:

Feinstein’s attitude got all the headlines. What should’ve gotten the headlines is the way these kids were being used as political props by the adults standing beside them. Happens in schools all the time, have witnessed it first-hand on too many occasions.

Unfortunately, I got a first-hand taste of this the other evening. You'll recall this portion of a post from Wednesday:

(By the way, I have to share an experience I had last evening that sent my blood pressure through the roof. I was covering the local city council meeting for a local radio station's website. The business on the agenda was conducted efficiently, but then a bunch of kids in grades 2 through 6 from a local Catholic school were brought into the council chambers. In waves of three at a time, they spoke to the council about how the city needs to "up its game" regarding "climate change," citing recent floods, droughts and such as some kind of evidence of a crisis. Basically laid down demands, in their adorable little way, that the city organize a task force and set goals with measurable results. I left their  horrifying little display out of my story about the meeting. Who the hell put these kids up to this? How far up the chain of decision-making at this school did this germinate? The council members and the mayor all sat there, charmed, or at least looking like it.  A lady from the administration explained to the students that "we are taking measures along these lines, but here at City Hall we call it sustainability." I came real close to jettisoning all trappings of an objective-journalist bearing. Alas, I have bills to pay, so I kept my trap zipped.)

So I guess this is a thing now. Indoctrination specialists teachers putting impressionable kids up to snot-nosedly confronting adults on matters of science and public policy that go way over the kiddies' heads.

The adults in these situations need to handle this the way Feinstein did every single time or the momentum of our societal decay is going to accelerate beyond even its present horrifying pace.

You can't just sit there and smile and act charmed.

That's just what these kids' jackbooted handlers are counting on.

In God's universe, the truth about anything and everything eventually comes to light

The point we've all known we'd arrive at is now before us:

"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett surrendered to authorities Thursday morning after he was charged with one count of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report.

Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said that Smollett is in custody after surrendering to authorities after 5 a.m. Police said they would conduct a news conference at 9 a.m. Smollett is expected to appear in bond court at 1:30 p.m. Thursday.

Police said a female attorney was present with Smollett when he turned himself in and his lawyers Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson were not present at the time.

The TV actor claimed he was the victim of a vicious hate crime in the Streeterville neighborhood last month, but the investigation turned on Smollet and he's now accused of allegedly orchestrating the attack with two brothers, one an extra on "Empire" and the other Smollett's personal trainer. A police spokesperson said this case is about accountability.

Meanwhile, the attorney representing the brothers, Gloria Schmidt, said they testified in front of a grand jury for hours Thursday and said Smollet needs to come clean about what really happened.

"I think that Jussie's conscience is probably not letting him sleep right now, so I think he should unload that conscience and just come out and tell the American people what actually happened," Schmidt. 

Now we shall see if several Democrat presidential candidates, the Democrat House speaker, reporters and commentators at several leftist television news networks, and leftist pundits will let the public witness any expansion of their worldviews, or whether any such expansion will in fact occur. Maybe they feel they can't afford any such expansion, given their career ambitions.

But they ought to remember this: they look like utter fools and charlatans to swaths of the public on which they depend for advancement in their particular fields. We can see that they are so entirely wrong about such a fundamental cornerstone of their worldviews that they ought not to be trusted with such grownup endeavors as governance, reportage or analysis.

But I'll bet most of them will just proceed as if this were a mere speed bump on their way to the grim world they intend to impose on us.

But whether they realize it or not, they go forth a bit hobbled by the brutal truth.

UPDATE: John McWhorter's piece about this at The Atlantic is a worthwhile read, full of insights sure to stick with you. And this little factoid: Smollett's mom is buds with Angela Davis.

Wednesday roundup

Kamala Harris's dad is none too pleased with his daughter at the moment:

Sen. Kamala Harris's Jamaican father has vigorously disavowed his daughter's comments regarding marijuana, accusing her of fraudulently stereotyping Jamaicans and pursuing "identity politics."

The senator said in a radio interview last week that she supports marijuana legalization and has smoked weed herself, citing her ethnicity to buttress her boast: “Half my family’s from Jamaica. Are you kidding me?”

Harris's father isn't laughing.

In a statement to Jamaica Global Online, Donald Harris said his immediate family wanted to "dissociate ourselves from this travesty.”

“My dear departed grandmother … as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics,” he said.

“Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty,” wrote Mr. Harris, an economics professor at Stanford University.

My first exposure to Jeffrey Hart was reading his syndicated column in the Indianapolis Star in the early 1980s, when I was on the cusp of my conversion experience. After it, I went on a conservative-magazine-subscribing binge, and, obviously, one such periodical was National Review, where I became better acquainted with his work and mind, and discovered the unique role he played on the Dartmouth faculty, where he taught English literature.

I read his book From This Moment On: America in 1940, which fleshed out my understanding of various things.

He passed away recently, and NR has reprinted a symposium from a few years ago, in which various colleagues, friends and former students shared their memories.

A taste from Peter Robinson's recollection:

In all of his courses Hart stressed two skills, reading and writing. These sound commonplace. As he approached them, they were not. He asserted that a great poem or novel can sharpen its readers’ perceptions and enlarge their understanding—but only if they submit to it and read it. Hart was never rude in the classroom, but whenever a student started talking about how a poem made him feel, Hart would shift the discussion to the poem’s historical context, its rhythm and rhyme scheme, or its diction. He was not interested in a 19-year-old’s ability to emote; he was very interested in the text. In The Age of Johnson, JH gave an exam that consisted only of a list of names drawn from Boswell’s Life. The students were charged to identify each character, in no more than a sentence apiece. I missed half of them, including (this has stayed with me) Topham Beauclerk, Dr. Johnson’s close and much younger friend. Like many students, I found the exam infuriating. We should have been asked about big ideas! To this grumbling, JH responded calmly: Do your reading. Experience the characters the author presents. Enter his world. If you don’t know who Topham Beauclerk was, you have done a deficient job of reading Boswell’s text.

In writing, Hart valued the simple, the original, the direct. The models he held up were journalistic, not academic. He stressed that Dr. Johnson was a working journalist, not an Oxford don, and he noted that journalism had shaped his own writing. “My newspaper column has taught me a great deal about directness,” he once explained. “Now, when I look at my first book, on Viscount Bolingbroke, which was my doctoral dissertation, I see the examining board on every page.” When a classmate of mine, who worked for the student newspaper, The Dartmouth, asked Hart how to improve his writing, Hart told him to write for the sports page. “Sports are objective and concrete,” Hart said. “It’s something you can write about.”

LITD thinks this would be an ill-advised move: Apparently there are rumblings around Washington that Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats may be on the way out.

Important piece at The Federalist by Rachelle Peterson entitled "How Higher Education Incubated the Eco-Socialism of the Green New Deal." You can now get fancy-pants degrees in "sustainability":

. . . sustainability has become a key organizing principle for higher education, as Peter Wood and I documented in “Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism.” Colleges and universities have rushed to introduce some 458 degree programs in sustainability including sustainability doctorates and sustainability-themed MBAs. And they have hired some 452 sustainability professionals, according to a 2017 study by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Campus Sustainability Directors earn a median salary of $82,000.

(By the way, I have to share an experience I had last evening that sent my blood pressure through the roof. I was covering the local city council meeting for a local radio station's website. The business on the agenda was conducted efficiently, but then a bunch of kids in grades 2 through 6 from a local Catholic school were brought into the council chambers. In waves of three at a time, they spoke to the council about how the city needs to "up its game" regarding "climate change," citing recent floods, droughts and such as some kind of evidence of a crisis. Basically laid down demands, in their adorable little way, that the city organize a task force and set goals with measurable results. I left their  horrifying little display out of my story about the meeting. Who the hell put these kids up to this? How far up the chain of decision-making at this school did this germinate? The council members and the mayor all sat there, charmed, or at least looking like it.  A lady from the administration explained to the students that "we are taking measures along these lines, but here at City Hall we call it sustainability." I came real close to jettisoning all trappings of an objective-journalist bearing. Alas, I have bills to pay, so I kept my trap zipped.)

You may have heard about the Trump administration initiative, led by US ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, to end worldwide criminalization of homosexuality. You'd think that everyone with an unconventional sex life would be pleased. but you just can't win with some people. Out magazine says, "Rather than being about helping queer people around the world, Trump's campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people to amass power and enact its own agenda."

Seven members of The UK's Parliament have left the Labor Party. Over the party's marked increase in antisemitism.

Observing how leftists live lets you know they don't believe their own hooey

Great Dennis Prager column at Townhall today. 

His title - and thrust - is a question: "Do Leftists Believe What They Say?"

He says there are two main reasons why leftists lie. One is that they believe their goals for society are of such paramount importance that truth must take a back seat. The other is that they place a far higher priority on feelings than facts.

We knew that, but it's important to review from time to time.

What I like are his examples of how this plays out. There's this:

For example, every honest economist knows women do not earn 20 percent less money than men for the same work done for the same amount of hours under the same conditions. Yet leftists repeat the lie that women earn 78 cents for every dollar men earn. Why any employers would hire men when they could hire women and get the same amount of work done at the same level of excellence for the same number of hours while saving 20 cents on the dollar is a question only God or the sphinx could answer.

And these:

Do leftists believe global warming will destroy the world as we know it in 12 years, as recently suggested by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? I don't know. They seem to talk themselves into believing their hysterias. But they don't act on them. Here's a simple proof that the left is lying about the imminent threat of global warming to civilization: Leftists don't support nuclear power. It is simply not possible to believe fossil fuel emissions will destroy the world and, at the same time, oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean and safe. Sweden, a model country for leftists, meets 40 percent of its energy needs with nuclear power. If you were certain you were terminally ill yet decline a medicine that is guaranteed to cure you, the rest of us would have every reason to assume you didn't really believe you were terminally ill.

Here's more evidence the left doesn't believe its global warming hysteria: How many leftists with beachfront property anywhere in the world have sold it? If leftists really believe global warming will cause the oceans to rise and soon inundate the world's coastal areas, why would any leftist not sell his beachfront home while he could not only make all his money back but make a profit as well? 

Another example of left-wing rhetoric leftists don't act on: The left tells us that colleges are permeated by a "rape culture," yet virtually all left-wing parents send their daughters to college. If you were to believe any place has a culture of rape, where 1 in 4 or 5 women is raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, would you send your 18-year-old daughter there? Of course not. So how do any left-wing mothers or fathers send their daughters to college? The answer would seem to be they know it's a lie -- but that doesn't matter, since the left views telling the truth as incomparably less significant than combating sexism, sexual assault, misogyny, toxic masculinity and patriarchy.

 I think an even deeper dig reveals something along these lines: A leftist places higher priority on fairness than on freedom. (Conversely, a conservative understands that life is not fair, but that people must have maximum freedom so as to apply their own agency to pursuing a good life within the parameters of that unfairness.) In fact, a leftist is so consumed with some abstract notion of fairness that he or she will ignore the basic architecture of this universe - the conditions that are givens, that are immutable. (Think two genders.)

And anyone not signing on to the leftist's notion of fairness must be silenced, taken out of commission. The Great Leveling is not up for discussion. It must occur, and no one can stand in its way.

An example from my own quiver of polemical arrows I like to trot out whenever the topic of conversation leads to a leftist asserting that health care is a right is asking, "How did people in the year 1300 exercise their right to a triple bypass?"

Not only does Elizabeth Warren hate freedom, she wants to undermine the family

She wants to insert government into the finances and relationships of post-American households in an unprecedentedly intrusive way,  with a universal child-care plan that would use her recently proposed wealth tax to guarantee that no matter how many kids a family had, the family would never have to spend more than 7 percent of its household income on child care.

Warren’s plan would cost taxpayers $70 billion per year, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics economists Mark Zandi and Sophia Koropeckyj. It would be paid for with some of the revenue from an annual wealth tax Warren has proposed on assets above $50 million, the person said.

The proposal would “substantially increase the number of children able to receive formal child care” from 6.8 million (or one-third of those under 5 years old) to 12 million (or 60 percent of children under 5), the economists said. It would cut formal care costs for families with young children by about 17 percent.

Two glaringly obvious reasons why this is sinister and must be opposed by decent normal people who love their freedom:

One is that using the tax code to punish wealth is tyranny of the rankest sort. People have the right to make or have as much money as they damn well want to, and should be free of the anticipation that the state might seize a greater percentage of it than it did when they made or had less.

The other is that the last thing we need in this country is yet more of a push to hand over young children to the state or the "child care" institutions it enlists in its mission to destroy the basic building block of a functional, happy, safe society.

Whenever this comes up - in face-to-face conversations or in online exchanges - we must be prepared to argue forcefully from the standpoint of these two reasons.

Don't let jackboots like Warren claim the prerogative of framing this in any other way.