In theory, a new administration could argue that the State Department investigation into the origin of the virus was duplicative of other efforts in the U.S. intelligence community. But there’s a catch. In these particular circumstances, the State Department might be able to find things that other agencies and departments of the federal government cannot.
It is pretty darn unlikely that any member of the U.S. military has ever stepped inside the walls of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We’ll probably never know if any officer or agent of the Central Intelligence Agency has ever been able to snoop around in the WIV. (If they have, well done, guys.)
But we do know, for certain, that at least two U.S. State Department employees have indeed toured the facility and been given briefings by the institute’s staff. Jamison Fouss, the U.S. consul general in Wuhan, and Rick Switzer, the embassy’s counselor of environment, science, technology, and health, repeatedly visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology and in January 2018 wrote that memo to Washington warning about a lack of trained staff. Every once in a while, diplomats can get access to places that other professions cannot.
No one’s afraid of diplomats. They’re polite and respectful. They can’t arrest people. They don’t carry guns. Lots of people, at home and abroad, can get in trouble for talking to a spy. But nobody gets in trouble for meeting with a State Department employee! Certain scientists, both at home and abroad, may be more comfortable speaking to diplomats than to members of the armed services, the “spookier” branches of the intelligence community, or law enforcement.
Last May, when President Trump announced a decision to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, candidate Joe Biden blasted the decision, claiming Trump had, “doubled down on his short-sighted policy of going it alone and abandoning American leadership.” Yet ahead of a summit with Vladimir Putin next month, the Biden administration has informed Russia that it has no intention of rejoining the agreement.
The Trump administration withdrew from the agreement, which started in 2002 as a way for dozens of countries to freely conduct surveillance flights over each other’s territory. When Trump decided to withdraw, noting that Russia was not abiding by its commitments under the treaty, Democrats responded in high dungeon.
“The President’s withdrawal will senselessly blind America and our allies while emboldening our enemies,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fumed. “This decision sends a clear signal to the Russians that they can continue their bad behavior unwatched and unchecked.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer joined with leading Democratic committee chairs in writing a letter declaring, “The Open Skies Treaty is an important, multilateral agreement that provides the United States and its allies critical information about Russian military forces via flights over Russian territory.”
Biden said that the treaty was necessary.
“I supported the Open Skies Treaty as a Senator, because I understood that the United States and our allies would benefit from being able to observe — on short notice — what Russia and other countries in Europe were doing with their military forces,” he wrote in a statement posted on Medium. “That has remained true for the nearly two decades the treaty has been in force. During the Obama Administration, the United States and our partners successfully used Open Skies flights and imagery to support Ukraine when Russia violated its territory, disprove Russian disinformation, and show the world what Russia was doing.”
As to Russian cheating, he said, ” Russian violations should be addressed not by withdrawing from the Treaty, but by seeking to resolve them through the Treaty’s implementation and dispute mechanism. That is exactly how other disputes over Russian implementation have been resolved, including altitude restrictions over Chechnya.”
He concluded, “Instead of tearing up treaties that make us and our allies more secure, President Trump should take common sense steps to keep Americans safe. He should remain in the Open Skies Treaty and work with allies to confront and resolve problems regarding Russia’s compliance.”
Yet for all that huffing and puffing, the Associated Press reports:
The Biden administration informed Russia on Thursday that it will not rejoin a key arms control pact, even as the two sides prepare for a summit next month between their leaders.
U.S. officials said Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told the Russians that the administration had decided not to reenter the Open Skies Treaty, which had allowed surveillance flights over military facilities in both countries but that former President Donald Trump had withdrawn from.
Like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, Rush Limbaugh created an empire too large to be left uncontested to a single heir upon his death. Today, we have news of how it will be divided. Rush’s distributor will replace him with a duo of younger hosts:
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton will take over his three-hour conservative talk radio show time slot, said distributor Premiere Networks [which] hopes the younger voices will bring something new to talk radio, while also continuing on in Mr. Limbaugh’s legacy. The program, slated to begin airing June 21, will be called “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show.” It is expected to air around the country, from noon to 3 p.m. ET, on hundreds of stations. . . . Mr. Travis, 42 years old, is a sports journalist, lawyer, TV analyst and founder of sports website Outkick.com. Since 2016 he’s hosted “Outkick the Coverage With Clay Travis” on Fox Sports Radio. . . . Mr. Sexton, 39, is a radio host and political commentator who has served as an officer with the Central Intelligence Agency and a New York Police Department counterterrorism expert. His three-hour weekday evening talk show, “The Buck Sexton Show”—formerly “America Now”—is syndicated to over 180 stations by Premiere. . . . Mr. Sexton is a regular on Fox News as a national security analyst, and was previously national security editor for The Blaze. Mr. Sexton pointed to their different backgrounds and younger ages as a boon for the show. “The most dominant talk radio hosts have been from one generation; Clay and I represent the next phase. We’re going to bring the perspective of two guys who see a country they’re deeply worried about, and a massive audience that needs people who will speak for them,” he said.
Cox Media Group (“CMG”) and Erick Erickson today announced syndication of The Erick Erickson show, featuring the top-rated host on Atlanta’s 95.5 WSB Radio. Erickson’s nationally syndicated program will be available Monday-Friday, 12pm-3pm ET, beginning June 1, 2021. Erickson, who is also a nationally syndicated columnist, has been a mainstay on 95.5 WSB for a decade. He is consistently one of the most listened to local hosts in the country and has the ear of conservative leaders across the nation. “I’ve been working towards this for a very long time, and I appreciate my long relationship with CMG. We look forward to continued success at 95.5 WSB and many new affiliates across the country,” said Erickson.
Time will tell, as with ancient Rome, which half of the empire endures longer. In the meantime, there is always room in conservative media for competition among distinct voices. Congratulations to all involved, and let the games begin.
If you click through, you’ll find that the responses often took the form of a joke that I meant the lab was in the basement of a pizza shop in D.C. Haha!
Yglesias gets many of the broad stokes correct, though I think the account lacks some texture. Even on April 1, 2020, saying that the virus “escaped from the virology” lab was often confused as a claim that the virus was intentionally designed in the lab, or intentionally released as a weapon. At the time, I still thought the simplest explanation didn’t involve gain-of-function research, but simply the study of bat coronaviruses in lab conditions that were not ideal.
Yglesias ends his account with asking, like Hillary Clinton, “What difference at this point does it make?” Because Yglesias already agreed with tighter restrictions of gain-of-function research, he doesn’t see how this could be a big deal. Most people didn’t know much about gain-of-function research, and if such research were responsible for the worst manmade disaster in history, you bet it makes a difference whether or not it escaped from a lab doing that research.
But here’s another policy difference that matters, but one that isn’t exactly related to the government of states: The major social media networks — Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter — have proven willing, over and over, to do the bidding of progressive Anglophone journalists who make a stink on Twitter. These journalists are formed by institutions that teach them deference to expertise, and a special deference to experts in fields that are socially coded as progressive. They expect that in a controversy, the experts are likely to agree upon the main points of contention and only argue about unimportant details. They expect that anyone coded as “conservative” who objects does so entirely for mercenary reasons, or out of bullheadedness. And since Brexit and Donald Trump, these journalists have demanded that the social-media companies act as powerful social censors. The lab-leak theory was deemed a conspiracy theory and misinformation, and the social-media companies treated it as such. This means that YouTube demonitized or deleted content that entertained the idea. Facebook took down posts, and penalized pages for publishing information bolstering this theory. And Twitter deleted tweets, or attached warnings to them redirecting users to government agencies. These institutions have incredible power to financially punish traditional- and digital-media institutions that spread “misinformation.”
In my view, these networks need to abandon this editorial function — or they need to be regulated like traditional media.
Advocates of legal and subsidized abortion have for decades resorted to euphemism (“choice,” “reproductive rights,” etc.) to advance their agenda, a tactic that testified to the public’s ambivalence about their cause. Over the years, pro-abortion activists have grown more and more convinced that the tactic has been self-defeating because it has reinforced the idea that there is something other than glorious about abortion.
Hence today’s New York Timesstory about Joe Biden, who remains wedded to the old approach. A principal complaint of the activists Lisa Lerer quotes is that Biden avoids using the word “abortion.” What is darkly amusing is that the activists often work at organizations that have obviously made a point of not including the word “abortion” in their own names. (Lerer doesn’t quote anyone from the best example of this phenomenon: NARAL Pro-Choice America, which changed its name long ago to get rid of the word.)
They keep finding ways not to say the word themselves even as they accuse Biden of being coy:
“The level of the crisis calls for a stronger level of leadership,” said Kelley Robinson, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “We’re looking for them to be explicit champions for sexual and reproductive health care and to use that bully pulpit to make sure that’s a priority that’s expressed from the highest office in the land.”
I have no doubt that Biden is going to go along with this and start saying the word abortion. But he is an old guy, and based on the evidence this particular habit is hard for a lot of people to break.
The Biden administration is slated to release its proposed budget for fiscal year 2022 tomorrow, and progressives are clamoring especially over the possibility that Biden will fail to include the pro-life Hyde amendment in his proposal.
Since the 1970s, Congress has attached the Hyde amendment to relevant spending bills to prevent federal funding from directly underwriting elective abortion procedures. As recently as the fight over the Affordable Care Act, about a quarter of Democrats insisted on including such an amendment in order to vote for the bill.
The Hyde amendment was once a bipartisan compromise to protect the consciences of pro-life Americans. During his several decades in the Senate, Joe Biden himself was a vocal proponent of Hyde, reiterating his own “personally pro-life” stance and insisting that Americans opposed to abortion should not be forced to direct their tax dollars toward abortion or toward groups that perform abortions.
But all of that changed over the last few years. In 2016, the Democratic Party’s official platform for the first time in history called for an end to Hyde, and left-wing politicians have become increasingly vocal in support of doing so as abortion-advocacy groups have turned up the pressure.
Biden was swift to reverse himself on the issue during the Democratic primary campaign to accommodate his party’s march leftward. Facing criticism over his previous support for Hyde, Biden came out in June 2019 against the amendment, and for the rest of the campaign he promised that, as president, he would back federally funded abortion on demand.
The time has come to put his money — or the American people’s money, in this case — where his mouth is. According to several reports, Biden is widely expected to use tomorrow’s proposed budget to formally endorse bringing an end to Hyde by leaving it out of his proposal, ushering in an era in which nearly the entire Democratic Party demands that spending bills fund abortion on the taxpayer dime.
Meanwhile, most Republican politicians appear prepared to resist such a sea change in federal abortion policy. Earlier this year, 200 GOP lawmakers in the House, led by Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Banks (R., Ind.), signed a letter pledging not to vote for any spending bill that fails to include pro-life protections such as Hyde. Nearly every GOP senator — excluding Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — signed on to a similar letter in the Senate, led by Montana Republican Steve Daines, who chairs the Senate Pro-Life Caucus.
Those lawmakers held to their promise in the spring when they refused to vote for the Democrats’ massive $1.9 trillion stimulus bill disguised as COVID-19 relief funding. The bill directed about $500 million to Planned Parenthood and included no Hyde-amendment protections to prevent various other funding streams from underwriting abortion.
Editor’s note: This post has been updated to reflect that the Clinton administration also proposed removing Hyde in 1993.
The Taliban have negotiated Afghan troop surrenders in the past, but never at the scale and pace of the base collapses this month in the four provinces extending east, north and west of Kabul. The tactic has removed hundreds of government forces from the battlefield, secured strategic territory and reaped weapons, ammunition and vehicles for the Taliban — often without firing a shot.
The base collapses are one measure of the rapidly deteriorating government war effort as one outpost after another falls, sometimes after battles, but often after wholesale surrenders.
The surrenders are part of a broader Taliban playbook of seizing and holding territory as security force morale plummets with the exit of international troops. Buyoffs of local police and militia.Local cease-fires that allow the Taliban to consolidate gains. A sustained military offensive despite pleas for peace talks and a nationwide cease-fire.
“The government is not able to save the security forces,” said Mohammed Jalal, a village elder in Baghlan Province. “If they fight, they will be killed, so they have to surrender.”
One notion out there is that there are no policy implications one way or the other if the virus emerged naturally or escaped from a lab. This might be true in the sense that it wouldn’t have changed how we responded to the pandemic in real time, but it still matters a lot. If the virus came from the Wuhan lab, there’d obviously be even more debate about how and why we conduct the research that was involved, and, more fundamentally, it would implicate the Chinese government in a truly monstrous cover-up that would severely damage its reputation and its relationship with U.S. The Chinese government realizes this, which is why, if there was a lab leak, it has every incentive to keep us from ever knowing.
Morgan Chalfant and Amie Parnes write in The Hill:
A majority — 55 percent — of U.S. adults who identify as Catholic say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in April, while 43 percent say it should be illegal in most cases.
“The fact of the matter is that Biden’s position reflects where most American Catholics are,” said David Campbell, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame and author of the new book “Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics.”
Not really. Biden appears to believe abortion should be legal even late in pregnancy. He favors taxpayer funding of abortions for low-income women. Even in the Pew poll, it looks like only a minority of Catholics believe abortion should be legal in “all” cases, which is a better approximation of Biden’s position than “all or most.”
A Marist poll for the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, asked finer-grained questions and released more complete results in January. It found that 53 percent of Americans who consider themselves Catholic believe that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother’s life, or not allowed at all. Among those Americans who describe themselves as “practicing Catholics,” the number rose to 67.
Sixty-three percent of Catholics, and 69 percent of practicing Catholics, opposed taxpayer funding of abortion.
I wish these last four numbers were all 100 percent. But no, most Catholics are not where Biden is on abortion.
That picture up there is snapped by our Molly Powell, of a New Hampshire spring. I’ll have more to say about those flowers after some reader mail.
And before the reader mail, a word about my column, Impromptus, today. It starts with January 6 and the GOP. And continues with China, Ethiopia, Mexico, Belarus, Andrew Yang, Elizabeth Taylor, Phil Mickelson, and more. Something for everyone, possibly. That column is here.
To an Impromptus last week, some responses. That column led with Mitch Daniels, and the recent graduation ceremony at Purdue University. Daniels is president of Purdue. He entered the stadium — the graduation venue — in unusual style, and delivered an unusual address. A reader writes,
My daughter was one of the graduates on Saturday and I was in Row 8 on about the 30-yard line for the grand entrance. It was incredible! And to mix sports metaphors, the speech was an absolute home run. . . .
Daniels never ran for president — a missed opportunity for the country, in my opinion.
That is a common sentiment (though not common enough, regrettably).
In the aforementioned column, I wrote, “In my lifetime, we saw the passing of the last World War I vet. Fairly soon, there will be no more World War II vets. Or Holocaust survivors. I’m glad we have so many — so many — on record.” A reader now writes,
My dad is 94. He’s one of that dwindling number of World War II veterans you referred to. He is a young veteran. He left home for training on his 18th birthday, but by the time he was trained and deployed, the war was over. Anyway, his grandmother lived to be 95. She told him about seeing the wounded men coming home at the end of the Civil War. (She would have been seven or eight in 1865.) He doesn’t have a lot of detail about those stories, but what struck me is, I’m hearing about men returning home from the Civil War, and I’m hearing about it second-hand. From my great-grandmother to my father, and from my father to me.
I don’t really know what this means, but it gives me pause.
In the course of that Impromptus, I spoke of the performing arts, and their return. A reader from Israel writes,
Apropos the subject of finally getting to see a live performance for the first time since the BC (Before Covid) epoch, tonight my wife and I will get to have that experience, viewing The Sound of Music, to be performed by the (amateur but very good) LOGON (Light Opera Group of the Negev) at the Jerusalem Theater.
The performance was supposed to have been a year or so ago, but was called off on account of plague.
I had forgotten all about it, when about six or seven weeks ago — before the theaters and concert halls had even reopened – I received a phone call from a very pleasant lady informing me that the performance would take place on May 19th and that my tickets were still valid. I teared up with joy. I told her, “You have no idea how happy you’ve just made me. We’ve been living in a cultural desert for over a year.”
I thought to myself that that lady on that day had the greatest job on the planet. She brought more happiness to more people in the space of a few hours than most people ever can.
Thanks to one and all for writing, and reading.
Let’s return to Molly Powell and the daffodils. Molly recalls a nursery rhyme (new to me):
Has come to town
With a yellow petticoat
And a pretty green gown.
Also, a poem by A. A. Milne, called “Daffodowndilly”:
She wore her yellow sun-bonnet,
She wore her greenest gown;
She turned to the south wind
And curtsied up and down.
She turned to the sunlight
And shook her yellow head,
And whispered to her neighbour:
“Winter is dead.”
Former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a speech Thursday evening at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, plans to argue that the future of the GOP needs to be about more than former President Donald Trump.
“Once again, we conservatives find ourselves at a crossroads,” Mr. Ryan will say, according to excerpts shared in advance. “Here’s one reality we have to face: if the conservative cause depends on the populist appeal of one personality, or on second-rate imitations, then we’re not going anywhere.”
The party’s 2012 vice-presidential nominee has had a tense relationship with Mr. Trump. In 2019, the then-president said the former speaker was a failure whose “record of achievement was atrocious.”
Mr. Ryan is also expected to praise some of the former president’s accomplishments. He plans to say that voters are seeking GOP leaders willing to show “independence and mettle.”
This is the same mistake Liz Cheney made. As Dan McLaughlin has pointed out, while we anti-Trumpers have no surefire way of pushing the orange man out of the picture, ignoring him for a while is definitely a better bet than continuing to have establishment Republicans go after him. This deepens the polarization within the party and keeps the former president in the news.
In a last desperate, if unnecessary, effort to ensure that she would be remembered as one of Britain’s worst prime ministers, Theresa May ensured that the U.K. would be obliged by law to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a gesture that will make little or no difference to the climate, will be extraordinarily economically destructive, and will almost certainly end in miserable failure. The U.K. was the first G7 country to make such a commitment, and it has not been the last. Lemmings are like that. Here in the U.S., the Biden administration boasts of having “set a course for the United States to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad, reaching net zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050.” It will be worth Americans’ while to keep an eye on Britain’s trudge to the solar-powered uplands.
Here’s a small detail from a Guardian report from the time when May announced her initiative:
Last week No 10 [Downing Street] dismissed claims from the chancellor [finance minister], Philip Hammond, that such a target would cost £1tn and could thus require spending cuts to public services.
If the economics of Britain’s net zero were hazy in 2019, they are not much clearer now. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is known neither for his command of detail nor for his willingness to confront unpleasant facts.
The adoption of heat pumps by homeowners and landlords will play a pivotal role in the U.K. meeting its commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Progress on them can serve as a near-term benchmark for the nation as a whole. Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants to install 600,000 heat pumps annually by 2028, a 20-fold increase from the current rate in a country where less than 1% of the homes use the technology. That means convincing millions of people to rip out their oil and gas boilers and adopt a technology most people haven’t heard of—and many can’t afford . . .
Heat pumps typically cost almost three times as much as a gas boiler, and they only work in well-insulated homes.
The U.K. is, of course, famous for its “well-insulated homes.”
Around 23.8million homes are connected to the gas grid, which they depend on for heating and hot water. A further one million homes depend on heating oil. Just 1.7million homes depend on electric heating – mainly flats and some rural properties. The reason gas is so prevalent is because it is abundant and cheap. This makes it a far more useful source of energy from the consumer’s perspective. Gas costs around a quarter of the price of electricity per kilowatt hour. And so, unsurprisingly, the total energy delivered by the gas grid is around four times that delivered by the electricity grid.
But the public’s need for cheap, reliable energy is not compatible with the Net Zero agenda. As part of the transition, some 25 million homes will have to be ‘upgraded’. This will require gas combi boilers – which are small enough to fit in a kitchen cabinet – to be replaced by an air-source heat-pump unit, including a large ‘buffer’ tank. These new units will take up roughly the space of a large cupboard. Due to the lower operating temperature of air-source central-heating systems, radiators will have to be replaced with units that are twice the size as well. Connections to the radiators will also have to be replaced with larger diameter pipework. All of these ‘upgrades’ will leave people with far less space in their homes.
That gives an idea of the scale of the problem, but not the timing, which may be more relaxed than Pile was anticipating.
A government threat to ban gas boilers in existing homes by 2035, and to fine homeowners if they failed to meet the deadline, seems to have lasted less than a day. It was reported on Tuesday morning that ministers were considering including such a ban in a new heat and buildings strategy to be published next month – but by the afternoon the government appeared to have backtracked, and said there wouldn’t be any fines.
That would be just as well if the government is to have any hope of hanging on to its new heartlands in former red wall seats – and indeed elsewhere. While much of Britain’s housing stock may be old and energy inefficient, an awful lot of it is owned and lived in by voters who don’t necessarily have the means to spend £10,000 on a new heat pump and another £10,000 on insulating their homes (which is the minimum cost of insulating each of Britain’s eight million homes with solid walls [note that Pile has higher numbers]). To hit them with such a bill – even with 14 years’ notice – is not going to go down well.
The bill to insulate homes and decarbonise home heating, of course, will come on top of the extra costs people face if they wish to continue to own a car after 2030 when the sale of new diesel and electric cars will be banned. It isn’t just the cars themselves which are more expensive, there is the practical cost of recharging an electric car when you do not have off-street parking next to your home . . .
The ban, it now seems (but watch this space) will be on the sale of new gas boilers from 2035, but the fact that Britain’s Conservative (no comment) government would even consider the far more draconian approach tells you what you need to know about Johnson’s climate fundamentalism.
Fortunately, political reality seems to have sunk in.
[I]t is steadily becoming apparent just how politically costly the net zero commitment could be. When environmental issues are expressed in general terms, people tend to fall on the side of taking action; when the consequences for them personally are explained to them, it tends to be a very different matter.
For some U.S. polling data on this question, go here.
When asked about willingness to spend out-of-pocket to mitigate climate change, 35 percent of respondents said they would not spend a dollar. Fifteen percent said they would spend up to $10 of their own money on climate change policies.
In The Critic, Conservative MP Steve Baker adds a few more details on the expense that comes with the Tories’ climate plans:
Costs are already clocking up at an extraordinary rate, with consumers forced to pour about £11 billion into renewables through their energy bills. Large offshore windfarms can each receive three or four hundred million pounds in subsidy, every year. The largest, Hornsea 1, will take more than half a billion pounds a year. Larger ones are coming. It’s no wonder the drive for renewables has led to electricity prices nearly doubling, a rise that looks likely to continue for decades to come.
This is only the start . . .
If ministers don’t obtain and maintain the consent of the public for Net Zero now with full and frank explanations of the costs and changes ahead — as they relentlessly have not during the panic of the pandemic — eventually there will be a terrible revolt. Fear will not be enough. Even the “nudging” government scientists currently engaging in it confess that, “using fear as a means of control is not ethical” and it “smacks of totalitarianism”. Is this really who we want to be?
Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley has just published Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell, the definitive account of the life of Hoover senior fellow Thomas Sowell. In this wide-ranging interview, Peter Robinson and Riley discuss the events and people that helped Sowell become one of the most important American voices on cultural, economic, and racial matters of the last 50 years.
Recorded on May 13, 2021
The clips that appear in this show came from the following interviews of Thomas Sowell:
I’m glad however to see that mainstream publications are starting to push back. David Leonhardt has pointed out that CDC’s guidance relies on wild overestimations of the risks of COVID transmission among children.
The Washington Post today has a fantastic op-ed recommending a full return to normal for children in summer camps and schools, regardless of their vaccination status. Tracy Beth Høeg, Lucy McBride, Allison Krug, and Monica Ghandi sum up the evidence of the current risks to kids:
This low risk for children nearly vanishes as cases plummet. As we saw in Israel and Britain, vaccinating adults indirectly protects children. The same trend is evident here in the United States: Adult vaccination has lowered covid-19 incidence among children by 50 percentin the past four weeks. On average, fewer than 0.01 percent of Americans are currently infected, and the chance of an asymptomatic person transmitting to a close contact is about 0.7 percent. That yields a scant 0.00007 percent chance that any close contact will transmit infection to a child. If the contact is outdoors, the risk appears to be more than 1,000 times lower.
In other words, there is no risk for maskless children outdoors at summer camp.
Gun-control advocate David Chipman, President Joe Biden’s nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), was in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee today. Questions were limited to five minutes per senator, which was good call by Democrats.
Chipman has already walked back his position on District of Columbia v. Heller, conceding that the Second Amendment is an individual right (his employers at Giffords disagree). He’s walked back his claim that helicopters were shot down at Waco with “.50-caliber Barretts.” He’s walked back his mockery of first-time gun owners. He’s walked back his contention that the government should be arresting gun owners “before they commit crimes.” He now says it was a mistake. It was also a mistake, he says, to claim that only criminals and gun lobbyists supported deregulating suppressors.
What he didn’t change his mind on, however, was the banning and confiscation of AR-15s. Chipman, in fact, wants to extend the National Firearms Act (NFA) to cover “assault weapons” as it does fully automatic guns. After prevaricating about the definition of “assault weapon” — the type of firearms, remember, he is already willing to ban — Chipman finally offered an obscure ATF definition, which includes any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that holds ammunition above .22 caliber. That means a massive number of rifles, the vast majority of which would never be used in a crime.
It isn’t scaremongering to say that if Chipman’s ATF definition of “assault weapons” would fall under the NFA, there would be a ban on owning most semi-automatic rifles in the future, an effective retroactive ban, a national registry to keep track of it all, among many other restrictions and fees. Such a law would likely create tens of millions of criminals overnight. Chipman, of course, doesn’t have the power to implement any of these changes. Thank God.
We’ve written a lot about the fake consensus against the lab-leak theory for a long time now — before it was cool! But Matthew Yglesias has a good tick-tock in his newsletter today about how the bogus consensus was created in the media.
Republicans seem to be running scared on infrastructure spending. On May 14, National Review’s editors advised no compromise when Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell suggested spending up to $800 billion on an infrastructure package negotiated with Democrats. Now, less than two weeks later, Republicans are rolling out a counterproposal of around $1 trillion.
Time flies when you’re spending other people’s money.
There was once a time when Republicans understood that voters do not always reward infrastructure spending. It was the last time they were going into the midterm elections during the first term of a Democratic administration.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, President Obama’s “shovel-ready jobs” Keynesian stimulus package aimed at recovery from the Great Recession, was passed without a single Republican vote in the House and only three Republican votes in the Senate (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and soon-to-be-Democrat Arlen Specter).
When that money got to the states, newly elected Republican governors in 2010 promised to turn away money for wasteful rail projects. And they did.
In Ohio, John Kasich defeated incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland while promising that a $400 million passenger-rail line from Cleveland to Cincinnati would be “dead” if voters cast their ballots for Kasich. As governor, Kasich kept to his word.
In Florida, Rick Scott won the governor’s mansion and rejected $2.4 billion in federal funding to build high-speed rail from Tampa to Orlando. “Government has become addicted to spending beyond its means and we cannot continue this flawed policy,” Scott said at the time.
In Wisconsin, $810 million in stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison was one of the biggest issues in the gubernatorial campaign. Scott Walker opposed it the entire campaign and defeated Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, who promised to see the project through. Walker, too, killed the high-speed rail project.
After the projects in Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin were canceled, the Department of Transportation insisted that the money had to be spent on rail projects. Kasich, Scott, and Walker had hoped to use the money on other transportation-related projects, but the Department of Transportation stuck to its position and the Republican governors let the money be redistributed to other states.
After the dust had cleared, Obama’s secretary of transportation, Ray La Hood, testified to Congress in December 2011 that despite Republican resistance, “Thirty-two states, the District of Columbia, and Amtrak are hard at work on over 150 projects, many of which are among the most substantial capital improvements to the nation’s rail network in decades.” He promised that “Americans will soon begin seeing significant travel time, frequency, and reliability improvements, in addition to upgraded stations and equipment.”
That was ten years ago. Have you seen any of those benefits?
With a few exceptions (such as the mournful 2019 podcast from Wisconsin Public Radio called Derailed) hardly anyone is missing Ohio, Florida, or Wisconsin’s canceled rail projects. Each of them would have run parallel to existing interstate highways for much of their routes. And states that got the money instead have been saddled with never-ending projects with ballooning costs.
California’s high-speed rail project seems like a nightmare that would jolt John Stossel awake in a cold sweat — but it’s real life. In 2008, California voters approved $9 billion in borrowing to build a high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The 2020 Business Plan for the California High-Speed Rail Authority estimates that stretch will cost $69 billion to $100 billion to complete. Only 119 miles of the 494-mile proposed route is even under construction. California hasn’t completed environmental review for 295 miles of the route.
That hasn’t inhibited California progressive sanctimony, however. The letter from the CEO in California’s high-speed-rail business plan starts with a quote from Nelson Mandela: “It always seems impossible until it is done.” Inspirational, but Mandela was completing a multigenerational struggle to overturn apartheid, not building a train.
We know what blanket infrastructure spending looks like. When the federal government is just throwing money at the states for projects they don’t really need, there’s not going to be any urgency to spend the money in a way that benefits taxpayers.
Republicans shouldn’t be afraid to point this out. Kasich, Scott, and Walker all won reelection in 2014. Voters didn’t hold it against them that they rejected infrastructure spending.
The context matters too. At least in February 2009, when Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economy was in the doldrums of recession. If you buy the logic of Keynesian stimulus spending, that was the right time to do it. Biden’s infrastructure proposal alone is over two times as expensive as Obama’s entire stimulus package, and the economy is growing already without it.
Republicans shouldn’t be playing around on this issue. If they fear backlash from voters, they should look back at 2010 and see that the conventional wisdom that opposition to infrastructure spending is an automatic vote loser is incorrect. And they should remember that federal infrastructure spending doesn’t live up to the hype.
The New York Times recently published a profile of Sinéad O’Connor by Amanda Hess that tries to declare vindication for O’Connor’s notorious 1992 protest on Saturday Night Live in which she tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II on live television while declaring, “Fight the real enemy!” You can watch that here:
According to Hall:
Few cultural castaways have been more vindicated by the passage of time: child sexual abuse, and its cover-up within the Catholic Church, is no longer an open secret. John Paul II finally acknowledged the church’s role in 2001, nearly a decade after O’Connor’s act of defiance. But the overreaction to O’Connor was not just about whether she was right or wrong; it was about the kinds of provocations we accept from women in music.
Now, if you read the profile of O’Connor, it comes through clearly that she is a badly broken person — beaten by her mother throughout childhood, with serious substance-abuse problems (“I can’t remember many details because I was constantly stoned”) — who never wanted to be a pop star, and is happier away from the spotlight, where she has changed her name and converted to Islam. If you view her SNL stunt as an effort to self-destruct her pop-music stardom as a means of saving her sanity and refocusing her art away from the demands of radio, then it does appear to have been successful. It was not the last time she did something like this; in 2018 she tweeted, “I’m terribly sorry. What I’m about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that’s what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.” She later claimed that she was just trying to get herself kicked off of Twitter by being racist.
If we are measuring by any yardstick other than deliberate self-sabotage, however, the problem with declaring O’Connor’s protest “vindicated” is that it fails to grapple with the fact that her protest was not only spectacularly unsuccessful and counterproductive, it was essentially designed to be so. Onstage, O’Connor did not even bother to explain what she was protesting the Church about. She instead took on the hugely popular Pope — who had been one of the defining figures in the great, winning cultural struggle against the evil and dehumanizing brutality of Communism over the previous decade and a half — and declared him, personally, to be “evil” and “the real enemy.” It was commonly understood as an attack on the Catholic Church and its billion-plus believers. In that sense, it was very much like attacking the American flag and the National Anthem precisely for their symbolic power — a protest designed to inflame rather than persuade, and one that is sure to turn people away from the topic of the protest. There is a strange romance, among people on the left half of the political spectrum, with the idea that it is noble to stage a protest that alienates rather than engages the audience, as a way of demonstrating the moral superiority of the protester over the common people.
Was O’Connor penalized more harshly for being a woman? An ironic question, given that one of the people who criticized her was Madonna, who has regularly used provocations to accentuate her career. There is no question that O’Connor suffered more for this kind of protest as a pop singer than a rock star would have. A male pop star would likely have suffered many of the same slings and arrows. But it is certainly true that, the occasional Madonna or Lady Gaga aside, women in pop music tend to be treated as unserious and uncontroversial — or if they do stir controversy, they are encouraged to do so by being hypersexualized or by being blandly conformist Democratic partisans, rather than by the kind of things we expect from punk rockers. That was even truer in 1992.
Moments ago, the White House released this statement:
Statement by President Joe Biden on the Investigation into the Origins
Back in early 2020, when COVID-19 emerged, I called for the CDC to get access to China to learn about the virus so we could fight it more effectively. The failure to get our inspectors on the ground in those early months will always hamper any investigation into the origin of COVID-19.
Nevertheless, shortly after I became President, in March, I had my National Security Advisor task the Intelligence Community to prepare a report on their most up-to-date analysis of the origins
The lockdowns in the U.S. are mostly in the rearview mirror, but across the border in Ontario (where almost 40 percent of Canadians live), they are handing out tickets to people for shaking hands in public:
TWO TICKETS for a total of $1440 for simplying reporting on a Freedom Rally.
They actually said it was for "shaking hands" with one of the attendees. This is the third week of attempted intimidation. I will never back down.
Ontario had a surge in COVID-19 cases this spring, but the incidence has fallen back to February levels and is continuing to decline — no faster than its not-locked-down U.S. neighbors. No wonder our Canadian friends in Toronto say they are living in a “health dictatorship.”
Ironically, one Canadian cop said he wrote the ticket under the “Re-Opening Ontario Act.” How Orwellian.
Something odd is going on here at National Review. I try to keep my head down and nod and agree with “the suits,” and I don’t pretend to understand the business side of National Review. But they’re really baffling me now.
The suits are offering 60% off NRPLUS, which comes out to . . . $40 per year, less than a buck a week. That seems so low, it might be an error. If I were you, and hadn’t yet subscribed, I would grab it as quick as possible, before somebody does the math again and realizes how little we’re charging.
This is all good stuff, and I’d hate for you to miss it. Sure, you could put off subscribing until another time, but I don’t know how much longer the suits will keep that under-a-buck-a-week, 60%-off plan. It’s your life, make your own decisions, but if I were you, I’d click here, plug in your credit-card information, and enjoy a year’s subscription for a what-the-heck-were-they-thinking price, and never look back.
Beyond that, I hope life finds you well. This past year has been an exceptionally tumultuous one, with all manner of hardships, isolation, setbacks, defeats, and eventually, little victories here and there. Whatever else is going on in our lives, you’re still here, I’m still here, and National Review is still here – in large part because of the support of readers like you. I thank you for your support and hope you will support us again.
By now, you know how that story goes. I was accused of alarmism, slippery-slope advocacy, conspiracy theories, etc., etc. And, as these kind of stories nearly always end, it came to be — in Canada, Netherlands, and Belgium, with more likely to follow over time.
Now, organ harvesting after euthanasia has become so normalized within the medical intellegentsia, that an American Medical Association publication, JAMA Surgery,had a letter debate — not about the propriety of killing and harvesting, but about whether the kill should begin at home or in a hospital.
Two doctors say that “organ donation after euthanasia starting at home” (ODEH) is the way to go:
The patient is only sedated at home, which marks the start of euthanasia in legal terms but is medically only intended to remove consciousness while vital functions are maintained and secured. Coma induction and the start of the agonal phase [killing] subsequently take place in the intensive care unit after farewells at home and transportation [to the hospital].
Their debaters says, no, start the homicides in the hospital:
A guideline for ODEH should be developed, including instructions for physicians on how to act if the condition of the patient deteriorates during transport. In the ODEH case presented by Mulder and Sonneveld, noradrena line was given to maintain adequate blood pressure during transport to the hospital. This could be interpreted as violation of an important principle of organ donation after euthanasia, namely that the euthanasia and organ donationshould be at all times handled as 2 separate entities.
No one says — don’t do it!
But I will. Some of these patients (in Belgium and Netherlands) are not physically sick, but mentally ill. Believing that their deaths are more valuable than their lives — because of the lives potentially saved by their organs — could easily become the tipping point for some of these anguished patients to decide to be killed. Note: These are people who would otherwise live for years.
In other words, organ donation could be an inducement to euthanasia. That could also be true of disabled patients who are the other prime cadre of ODE targets because they have “good organs.”
Moreover, in Onatario, Canada, the organ donation society is told in advance by doctors of a planned euthanasia, and representatives call the patient/family to ask for their organs! It’s almost out of a Monty Python skit, “Hello, can we have your liver?”
No, of course suicide prevention is not offered! That might get in the way of suffering people agreeing to be transformed into so many natural resources.
In the Spring 2021 issue of the Human Life Review, I have a long article chronicling the legal persecution that pro-life activists have faced for exposing the abortion industry’s involvement in illegal fetal-tissue trafficking.
As we’ve covered extensively here at National Review, pro-life whistleblower David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress in 2015 released video footage from an undercover investigation, revealing rampant wrongdoing among abortion providers who have profited from the body parts of aborted babies.
In Daleiden’s footage, abortion-industry workers, including executives at Planned Parenthood, admitted to selling organs and tissue from aborted babies for research — violating several federal and state laws in the process.
Even though subsequent congressional investigations turned up evidence confirming what Daleiden captured on video, he and his group have been the only ones to face any significant consequences. Since 2015, he has been embroiled in several costly lawsuits, including from the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and the state of California, seeking to punish him and suppress his footage.
Posing as a potential fetal-tissue buyer, Daleiden had captured video evidence suggesting that prominent abortionists, Planned Parenthood executives, and biotechnology companies were engaged in a systematic campaign to profit from the body parts of aborted babies, in violation of state and federal laws.
Nearly six years later, despite congressional investigations confirming much of what he had exposed, Daleiden and his team have been the only ones to face serious legal repercussions. Ever since Daleiden began to show the public what he had discovered, abortion organizations and their political allies have targeted him, bringing the force of law against him for having dared to expose the wrongdoing of malefactors in the abortion industry.
The explanations for that injustice rest primarily on the fact that abortion organizations possess immense financial resources, which they wield to obscure evidence of their unsavory practices and illegal activity. They rely heavily on assistance from legal and political actors who support abortion and who use their power to protect abortion providers from consequences. They have come to expect favorable, kid-glove coverage from legacy media outlets determined to demonize prolifers and ignore the truth about abortion and the grisly industry that sustains it.
As a result, Daleiden and his allies have spent years fighting in court to keep his videos available and to keep him out of jail, while the abortion purveyors whose corruption he revealed have skated by mostly unscathed. Due in large part to the gruesomeness of the footage, the release of the CMP videos in 2015 received a great deal of initial attention. But Planned Parenthood executives immediately rolled out a public-relations campaign to defend the group’s image, and media allies mounted an enormous effort to defend Planned Parenthood and discredit Daleiden.
By the time lengthy congressional investigations confirmed that Planned Parenthood and others involved in fetal-tissue trafficking appeared to have flouted numerous significant laws, the news cycle and the public had, for the most part, lost interest. Daleiden was left to face the wrath of those whose nefarious dealings and grave legal violations he had so graphically exposed—and his fight for justice continues to this day.
Consider, in contrast to this injustice, the way our legal system tends to reward other sorts of whistleblowers, such as animal-rights activists who go undercover to film mistreatment of animals at factory farms. Those undercover investigators rarely face significant legal repercussions but instead typically succeed in bringing about consequences for those whose illegal activity they exposed.
Had Daleiden gone undercover to expose any other kind of criminal wrongdoing, he would be celebrated as a national hero. Instead, because he dared to challenge the abortion industry, he has spent half a decade fighting to stay out of jail and avoid crushing legal fines for the crime of revealing to the public the evil of the abortion industry and the corruption of its political and media allies.
It has long been evident that “progressives” have a huge streak of intolerance for disagreement. In recent years, they have become astoundingly open about that, particularly in the academic world. Students or faculty members who speak up to dissent from leftist orthodoxy are apt to find themselves facing the lash.
Here is a particularly revealing incident. As Robert Zimmerman writes on his blog, Professor Elisa Parrett of the Lake Washington Institute of Technology, has been excoriated by the school’s president because she dared to oppose segregated racial “training.” Academic freedom and open debate are evidently concepts unknown to the Institute’s president, Amy Morrison.
Zimmerman nails the truth: “Of course, freedom of speech is impossible under such circumstances. If according to the authorities your comments might offend someone somewhere and therefore must be silenced, the authorities have just given themselves the power to silence all opinions they don’t like, arbitrarily. And that is exactly what we have now on college campuses and corporate offices nationwide: an illiberal oppression based on mindless hate and the desire to control everything with the misuse of power.”
It’s time for a ferocious counterattack by the people responsible for running our educational institutions, and paying for them. Intolerant authoritarian officials like Morrison need to be shown the door and replaced by people who, whatever their politics might be, uphold the basic norms of the academia.
Two years ago, during an earlier phase of the ongoing border crisis, AOC said “The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border.”
And today? Crickets.
Congressional Democrats’ hypocrisy on the treatment of “unaccompanied” illegal-alien minors has become glaring enough that friendly media outlets feel they have to offer an explanation. The New York Times this week provided a platform for Democratic representatives to explain why they haven’t engaged in the kind of performative outrage at the living conditions of detained minors that greeted the exact same problem under Trump. Instead, the article notes, they are “voicing worries privately to …
President Joe Biden, discussing his predecessor Donald Trump’s summits with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un: “What I would not do is I would not do what had been done in the recent past. I would not give him all that he’s looking for is: national — international recognition as legitimate and — and say — and give them what allowed him to move in the direction of appearing to be more — how can I say it? — more serious about what he wasn’t at all serious about.”
We may have forgotten over the last couple of years, but this is how diplomacy works. We don’t work together — we don’t meet with people only when we agree. It’s actually important to meet with leaders when we have a range of disagreements, as we do with Russian leaders.
So we don’t regard the meeting with the Russian President as a reward; we regard it as a vital part of defending America’s interests.
And President Biden is meeting with Vladimir Putin because of our country’s differences, not in spite of them. It’s an opportunity to raise concerns where we have them and, again, to move toward a more stable and predictable relationship with the Russian government.
So in the Biden White House, the U.S. president holding a summit with Kim Jong Un is rewarding the North Korean leader, but the U.S. president holding a summit with Vladimir Putin is not rewarding the Russian leader. This is because Kim Jong Un was not as serious about negotiations as he appeared, but Vladimir Putin is as serious about negotiations as he appears.
Clear as mud!
Some may scoff that despite the record of duplicity that marks the past 22 years or so, the Biden White House believes Putin can deliver “a more stable and predictable relationship.” Then again, Putin’s duplicity and skullduggery is pretty stable and predictable.
That’s the title of a study that’s been accepted for publication in The Quarterly Journal of Economics. The approved manuscript is paywalled except for the brief abstract, but you can read an earlier “working paper” version here.
The neat thing about the study is that, instead of relying on overall voting rates or survey data, it has administrative data on individuals’ registration and turnout. This is put together by Catalist, a business that maintains enormous amounts of voter data to help progressive campaigns. The study includes 1.6 billion observations of voters’ behavior between 2008 and 2018, along with demographic information about the voters.
And the upshot is that if voter ID does anything, it’s not a big enough effect to measure reliably, even with such a huge, detailed sample. Turnout in general doesn’t decline when these laws are in effect. Minority turnout in particular doesn’t decline. Fraud doesn’t decline, or at least detected cases of fraud don’t. Perceptions of fraud don’t change either. One thing that does happen is that “the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities.”
The whole issue is kind of a nothingburger. Conservatives may overhype fraud — and a losing presidential candidate I can think of may have gone off the deep end over it. But it’s not unreasonable to ask people to show IDs to vote, and this requirement does not stop people from actually voting.
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to grant cert in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. It ought to do so and rewrite a terribly mistaken chapter in our law, namely the permission the Court has given to college officials to discriminate for and against students by putting them into racial categories.
Hot off the presses is a book that the justices should read — and our educational leaders as well. The book is A Dubious Expediency, edited by law professors Gail Heriot and Maimon Schwarzschild. In today’s Martin Center article, I review the book. Its eight essays will persuade any fair-minded reader that we would be far better off if the courts had just said “No” to the idea that colleges should, to paraphrase Orwell, declare that all students are equal, but some are more equal than others.
The book’s title comes from the first case where racial preferences were litigated — the Bakke case. What few people know is that when the Supreme Court of California decided that case in 1976, Justice Stanley Mosk, a dedicated civil-rights proponent, did say “No.” He wrote that we should not give up the principle of racial neutrality for the “dubious expediency” of supposedly helping people in certain groups. The subsequent history of that case was the oddly important decision by Justice Powell that racial preferences might be justified if there were educational benefits from it.
Ever since then, colleges and universities have been saying that there are such benefits, and courts have mostly deferred to their wishes.
What makes this book so powerful are the inside views we get of how racial preferences have actually worked. The official story is that they help put more students from “underrepresented minority” groups into America’s mainstream. On the contrary, we find, racial preferences have undermined academic standards, created a sense of entitlement, and hindered many minority students from achieving all that they could.
Perhaps the essay that will have the most impact on readers is that of Heather Mac Donald, who focuses on the damage that preferences are inflicting on science and technology, where high standards are giving way under the pressure for “equity” in results.
If you only read one book on educational policy this year, A Dubious Expediency should be it.
Responding to the news that Fast & Furious 9 actor John Cena apologized in Mandarin for ‘accidentally’ calling Taiwan a country, Dylan Matthews of Vox tweeted the following:
China apologists are always warning about a new Cold War but one difference is that in the last Cold War pro-Soviet actors and writers were blacklisted, whereas now anti-CCP actors and writers are bullied by their studios until they repent https://t.co/dy1EFbU5kh
Matthews seems to be on the right side of this particular question, so I don’t wish to be too mean in response. But this tweet reflects an incomplete understanding of 20th-century Hollywood history. Blacklisting, the formal banning of Communist-affiliated Hollywood talent from being involved in film productions, began in earnest in 1947, when the House Un-American Activities Committee turned its attention to Hollywood. Before that, Communist infiltration in Tinseltown was already quite real. Before the U.S. entered the war, for example, Party members in Hollywood secretly obeyed a Moscow directive to take an isolationist rather than pro-Hitler stance once the Nazi-Soviet nonagggression pact was signed in 1939.
Communist infiltration as a going concern was then complicated, somewhat, by the fact that, during World War II, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were, for a time, ostensible allies. So it was convenient for Hollywood’s Communists that it was in America’s interests to produce such Soviet propaganda films as 1943’s North Star and Mission to Moscow and 1944’s Song of Russia. But their wartime behavior was still highly suspect even with this qualification. You could support the American war effort without joining the Communist Party, but that didn’t stop screenwriter Dalton Trumbo from doing so the same year Mission to Moscow came out. Communists organized and often were in charge of many of the various production guilds and other groups that dominated the behind-the-scenes world of moviemaking. And while there were examples of Soviet propaganda made during the war, the greater effect on Hollywood was what wasn’t made. As an account in Reason magazine put it:
But if Comintern fantasies of a Soviet Hollywood were never realized, party functionaries nevertheless played a significant role: They were sometimes able to prevent the production of movies they opposed. The party had not only helped organize the Screen Writers Guild, it had organized the Story Analysts Guild as well. Story analysts judge scripts and film treatments early in the decision making process. A dismissive report often means that a studio will pass on a proposed production. The party was thus well positioned to quash scripts and treatments with anti-Soviet content, along with stories that portrayed business and religion in a favorable light. In The Worker, Dalton Trumbo openly bragged that the following works had not reached the screen: Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar; Victor Kravchenko’s I Chose Freedom; and Bernard Clare by James T. Farrell, also author of Studs Lonigan and vilified by party enforcer Mike Gold as “a vicious, voluble Trotskyite.”
After the war, many of Hollywood’s Communists went to serious lengths to try to turn the American film industry to Moscow’s advantage. Some of the New Deal liberals who had worked with them during the war — such as Ronald Reagan (before his ‘conversion’) and Olivia de Havilland — were aghast at such attempts once the war was over. De Havilland, a member of the Hollywood Independent Citizens’ Committee for the Arts, Sciences and Professions (led by secret Communist Hannah Dorner), was particularly incensed at the increasing radicalism of her organization, and helped to reveal it for the Communist front it was.
Yes, the blacklist eventually did happen, and the famous “Hollywood Ten” (including Trumbo) were convicted of contempt of Congress and did jail time. Many others fell victim to its excesses, and were unable to work in the industry thereafter. Though some managed to keep working throughout this period, and they had many defenders and sympathizers. At any rate, by the 1960s, the blacklist had ended; Trumbo, for example, returned formally to screenwriting, and received retroactive credit for his various clandestine accomplishments during the time he couldn’t technically be involved in Hollywood productions. And now, the blacklisting era is just consigned to the same period of hysteria as McCarthyism, regardless of the veracity of the complaints at the root of both phenomena (Joseph McCarthy may have been a demagogue, but there were actual Communists in the government as well as in Hollywood). The blacklisted are now seen as martyrs and victims, given and sympathetic biographies. But yes, it did happen. Let’s not deny that.
But we shouldn’t downplay the extent of Communist infiltration of Hollywood in the past. It was not a simple matter of Hollywood immediately clamping down on Communist influence, preventing a beachhead from ever forming there. It was very real for a time, with many active collaborators, and many more useful idiots along for the ride. So, in a sense, our current era is not completely different from the past. The biggest difference is that now the infiltration, subversion, and prostration are happening in the open, showing up in what is made rather than what isn’t, and are in pursuit (at least ostensibly) of dollars rather than ideology, with those complicit not realizing the extent to which those dollars support that ideology. John Cena didn’t have to become a member of the Chinese Communist Party to do its bidding. That creates new challenges for those interested in fighting the new Hollywood Communists. Yet it doesn’t make the past irrelevant in seeking guidance on how to do so.
The Senate voted 51–48 on Tuesday to confirm Kristen Clarke as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. All 50 Senate Democrats and Maine Republican Susan Collins voted in the affirmative.
“I Prosecuted Police Killings. Defund the Police—But Be Strategic,” read the headline of Clarke’s Newsweek op-ed. During her Senate confirmation hearing this year, Clarke claimed: “I do not support defunding the police.” She blamed the editors for assigning the headline to her piece, but in the text of the article she called the “defund the police” slogan a “unifying call.”
“Exactly what that motto means in practice, though, is a critical question,” she added. In 2020, Clarke endorsed the typical progressive view of “defunding the police” — cutting police budgets and shifting the funding to social services — rather than the more radical and totally insane idea that the police should simply be abolished.
“We must invest less in police and more in social workers,” Clarke wrote in 2020. “We must invest less in police and more in social supports in our schools. . . . We must invest less in police and more in mental health aid.”
During her Senate confirmation hearing, Clarke acted as if she had never written those words and made the preposterous claim that the “impetus for writing that op-ed was to make clear that I do not support defunding the police.”
Today on The Editors, Rich, Jim, Alexandra, and Michael discuss the newly popular lab-leak theory, attacks on American Jews, and John Cena’s embarrassing kowtow to China. Listen below, or follow this show on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, TuneIn, or Spotify.
One could go on correcting AP reports on Israel and the Palestinians, as I did yesterday, till the cows come home. Let me comment (in italics) on just one more sentence from another report, which quotes a Gaza man whose house was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike:
“We live in death every day as long as there is an occupation,” he said, referring to Israel’s rule over Palestinians, including its blockade of Gaza.
(1) They “live in death” because they are ruled by Hamas, a terrorist death cult.
(2) There is no “occupation” of Gaza; Israel withdrew completely from the territory, to the last Jew, in 2005.
(3) In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority exercises a high level of autonomy; Israel’s “rule” consists of stymieing anti-Israeli terror and cooperating with the PA itself to prevent a Hamas takeover of the territory.
(4) The blockade of Gaza was imposed by Israel — and Egypt (the other noted Zionist nation) — after Hamas took power, so that Hamas would not import or smuggle in even more weapons than it already produces within the Strip.
AP reporters seem to hear “blah blah blah” when the phrase “destruction of Israel” is used. The rest of us believe Hamas when it says that’s what it wants.
Over the weekend, an airplane operated by an Irish airline was hijacked over Belarus by four men who claimed a bomb was onboard, and a Belarussian fighter jet “escorted” the flight to Minsk. When the plane landed, a dissident journalist, Raman Pratasevich, was removed from and taken into custody by the authorities.
In a statement condemning the hijacking and kidnapping on Monday night, President Biden said that he welcomes “the news that the European Union has called for targeted economic sanctions and other measures, and have asked my team to develop appropriate options to hold accountable those responsible, in close coordination with the European Union, other allies and partners, and international organizations.”
Some GOP senators have a clear idea of what one of those “appropriate options” would be: U.S. sanctions that would halt the the Nord Stream 2 oil pipeline that runs from Russia to Germany.
“Belarus’s aerial piracy and possible Russian involvement demand a swift and strong response from NATO and the EU,” Arkansas GOP senator Tom Cotton said in a statement. “That response should start with ending the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, Russia’s attempt to gain further coercive leverage over Europe.”
“If President Biden wants ‘appropriate options to hold accountable those responsible,’ his administration needs to tighten the screws on Vladimir Putin,” Nebraska GOP senator Ben Sasse said in a statement. “Like every puppet leader, Lukashenko doesn’t use the bathroom without asking for Moscow’s permission. It’s fanciful to imagine he’d hijack a flight between NATO allies without Moscow’s blessing. Putin’s regime is emboldened because the U.S. dropped our sanctions against his treasured Nord Stream 2 pipeline. We should impose those sanctions tonight.”
The pipeline, which is about 95 percent complete and runs from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, circumventing routes that run through Ukraine, can now only be stopped by U.S. sanctions penalizing firms involved in its construction. The tricky part is that many of these entities are German and Swiss, hence the German government’s self-interested opposition to the sanctions, which now seems to be dictating U.S. policy . . .
Like Ukraine, Poland and other countries in the region are threatened by Russia’s tightening grip on their allies’ energy supply. In the past, Moscow has demonstrated no hesitation to turn off the spigot when it needs to get what it wants, but Berlin, driven by the importance of “securing” energy supplies for its industries (something imperiled by Merkel’s misguided turn away from nuclear to renewables) and by a lingering attachment to neo-neutralism, seems content to ignore the obvious opportunity for blackmail that Nord Stream 2 will represent.
Where the Trump administration raised hell, however, the Biden administration has toned down the American campaign against Vladimir Putin’s energy ambitions in order to avoid irritating Germany, a country that it sees as a vital strategic partner.
This is a brilliant analysis of the ongoing Israel–Hamas war that includes a memorable anecdote about two IDF generals asking to visit the Vietnamese strategist, General Vo Nguyen Giap, who had defeated the French and the Americans:
Unexpectedly, the request was approved. Giap agreed to meet them. When the Israelis arrived in Vietnam, they sat down with the man who by then had spent decades as his country’s defense minister. It was a long meeting, as Ben Hanan would later recall to Eran Lerman, a former top-ranked IDF intelligence officer and later deputy national security adviser. Lerman, now at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told the story to this writer.
When the Israelis rose to leave, Giap suddenly turned to the Palestinian issue. “Listen,” he said, “the Palestinians are always coming here and saying to me, ‘You expelled the French and the Americans. How do we expel the Jews?’”
The generals were intrigued. “And what do you tell them?”
“I tell them,” Giap replied, “that the French went back to France and the Americans to America. But the Jews have nowhere to go. You will not expel them.”
Chelsea Mitchell, one of the young female athletes challenging Connecticut’s transgender sports policies, has written a courageous piece for USA Today. Mitchell is objectively one of the fastest female high-school athletes in the state, but when young men are allowed to compete against her, she doesn’t stand much of a chance. Not only does this policy make a mockery of sports; it is also demoralizing and cruel.
Having lost four women’s state championship titles, two all-New England awards, and multiple other awards and opportunities to young men, she feels that she is “not good enough; that my body isn’t good enough; and that no matter how hard I work, I am unlikely to succeed, because I’m a woman.”
Mitchell is one of four similarly situated girls to file a lawsuit with Alliance Defending Freedom against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC), which has allowed this sexist policy to humiliate young women and deprive them of hard-earned opportunities. A federal district court recently dismissed their case. This truly is one of the most egregious setbacks to women’s rights in modern times.
PETA has one ideology: Animals are morally equal to people. It has one goal: No human ownership or instrumental use of animals. No exceptions.
As committed ideologues, PETA lies to further these goals. For example, the group claims that animal research offers no human benefit — obvious baloney.
The animal-rights ideologues also pretend that eating animals or consuming dairy products is bad for our health. Everything in moderation, of course, but we are naturally omnivores. Meat and animal bi-products are good for us. Veganism is hazardous to young children’s health when bones and brain are growing, and can be dangerous to adults unless supplements are included in the diet.
A new study finds milk isn’t just good for your bones, it’s also doing plenty for your heart too. An international team finds drinking milk regularly can significantly drop the chances of suffering from heart disease.
Their findings reveal milk drinkers also have lower levels of cholesterol, which can cause blockages in the arteries and lead to a heart attack or stroke. Overall, those drinking milk each day slashed their risk of coronary heart disease by 14 percent.
Milk is good for the brain too:
Milk has a long history of helping to build healthy bones and provide the body with a vitamin and protein boost. Scientists also believe it can boost brain power. A previous study of almost 1,000 people discovered those who drank milk performed better in concentration and learning tests.
It’s believed certain nutrients in dairy products, such as magnesium, could help stave off memory loss. They may also help protect against heart disease and high blood pressure, which in turn maintains the brain’s ability to properly function. Better blood flow carries more oxygen to the brain.
I have no complaint against people who refrain from consuming animal products because of moral issues. Making choices based on one’s moral view is an aspect of human exceptionalism. Just don’t lie to convince others to follow.
Always remember: “Animal rights” is not the same thing at all as “animal welfare.” Got milk?