A new Harvard-Harris poll shows 60 percent of respondents have doubts about Joe Biden’s fitness for office, compared to just 40 percent who say Biden is mentally fit to serve as president of the United States. The same survey finds that 64 percent say Biden is too old to serve as president, while just 36 percent say he is showing he is fit to be president.
This could mean that I have now brainwashed well more than half of America with columns like this one from last August. But it is more likely that roughly 6o percent of Americans are paying attention and can’t explain it away — the rare interviews, the brief appearances in front of the cameras, the struggle to read lines off a teleprompter, the long, meandering anecdotes and increasingly frequent flashes of irritability. Biden looks like a man well past his prime — about to turn 80 — who should be enjoying Matlock reruns and pudding and watching professional golf at a really high volume.
An unnamed Democratic lawmaker complains to NBC News:
“There’s a benefit to having the president out there every day using his executive power to show the country you’re fighting for them,” the Democratic lawmaker said. “And it’s almost like he’s hiding. He has the bully pulpit, and he’s either hiding behind it or under it. I don’t know where he is.”
The simplest explanation is that at 79 years old, Biden doesn’t have the energy to use the bully pulpit the way Democrats wished.
The precise moment I decided to stop lending McKinnon special courtesies, was when he lauded the terminal illness of a young woman, Magdalen Berns, whom I held (and still hold) in great esteem.
Berns believed strongly that men cannot be women. As she lay on her deathbed in Scotland, at the age of 36, surrounded by her loved ones, McKinnon tweeted that he was “happy” when bad people died, that this feeling is “justified,” that Berns is a “trash human,” and further advised his followers “don’t be the sort of person who people you’ve harmed are happy you’re dying of brain cancer.” By contrast, here is a characteristically civil, clear and courageous quote from Berns: “it’s not hate to defend your rights and it’s not hate to speak the truth.”
Men can be so rude sometimes.
Other women have tried to articulate similar sentiments with regard to McKinnon. Take Jen Wagner-Assali, who, after coming in third to McKinnon at the UCI Masters Track World Championship in 2018, tweeted: “it’s definitely NOT fair.” After being bullied, Wagner apologized to McKinnon for causing offense. But that wasn’t enough, as McKinnon explained. “The apology is not accepted: she still thinks what she said. She merely apologizes for being caught saying it publicly.”
She still thinks it’s not fair for a man to beat her in the women’s category? Just imagine!
Electric police cars are running out of charge when responding to emergencies because the blue lights and sirens drain the batteries, it has been suggested. Officers using environmentally friendly vehicles in rural areas are also struggling to locate charging points, raising questions about their effectiveness. The vast majority of constabularies in England and Wales now include electric vehicles in their fleet, with the Metropolitan Police pledging to be 100 per cent electric by 2030. Despite being one of the country’s smallest forces, Gloucestershire Constabulary has the second biggest number of electric vehicles in the country. With almost 90 battery powered police cars on the county’s roads, electric vehicles make up a fifth of the force’s entire fleet. But the local Police and Crime Commissioner, Chris Nelson, has acknowledged there are issues with the cars responding to some emergencies. He said vehicles using their lights, radio and heater were in danger of “running out of puff”. . . . The Government has pledged to ban the production of all new diesel and petrol vehicles by 2030, leaving police forces urgently looking for alternatives. But the increasing amount of technology carried in them — such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition computers and sophisticated radio equipment — affects battery range.
When central planners start insisting on the adoption of a technology before it is ready for prime time, this is the sort of thing that will happen.
As I wrote earlier, this is the natural consequence of the LGBT movement’s self-defeating conquest of “normality.” The statement “children belong at drag shows” is designed to shock and subvert norms in a way that drag itself no longer can.
According to the Ezra Klein Show: “For decades now, the conservative legal movement has been on a mission to remake this nation’s laws from the bench.”
That is not an error — it is a lie.
The main focus and effort of the “conservative legal movement” — i.e., the radicals who believe that we write our laws down for a reason — has been to stop the remaking of our nation’s laws from the bench and, in some cases, to undo particularly flagrant acts of judicial lawmaking such as Roe v. Wade.
Roe usurped the power of lawmaking from the elected lawmakers; all Dobbs does is return the power of lawmaking to those elected lawmakers. Which is to say, what the conservative legal movement has accomplished here is to ensure that laws are not made or remade from the bench.
Klein’s claim is a shameful misrepresentation, and it is intellectually dishonest.
This Harvard-Harris poll, which was conducted entirely after Roe v. Wade was overturned, demonstrates nicely why the claim that Roe and Casey had made a wise and enduring decision for the nation was always such bunk.
When asked, “Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs Wade, which allows each state to decide its own standards for abortion instead of a set right?” 55 percent of respondents said that they opposed the overturning, with 45 percent saying they supported it.
In and of itself, this isn’t exactly resounding. Just 55 percent against? In this media environment? But when one adds in the subsequent questions in the poll, the case for Roe as a beneficial political settlement (which was made by Justice Breyer during oral arguments, by the majority in Casey, and by anyone who was too embarrassed to pretend Roe was law) falls apart. Out of the options presented to them, 72 percent of respondents said that they supported abortion up until 15 weeks — the exact issue at stake in Dobbs — while 49 percent went only to six weeks. Both of these views were incompatible with Roe, which means that, whether they knew it or not, many Americans said they supported Roe while opposing what Roe actually did.
Nor do Americans seem to be too upset with the Court, or with the GOP. The Democrats’ execrable “pack the Court” idea remains as unpopular as ever: Sixty-three percent of Americans consider the Court “legitimate,” and 59 believe the Democrats are wrong to say otherwise. And, when asked whether the overturning of Roe would have an effect on their vote in the midterm, the results are a wash. Thirty-six percent said it would make them more likely to vote for a Democrat, 36 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for a Republican, and 29 percent said it would have no effect.
These are not the ingredients from which backlashes are made.
The silence of Republican office-holders on the Civics Secures Democracy Act (CSDA) — a bill that would push critical race theory (CRT) on every public school in the country — has just been broken by Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Late last week, DeSantis exposed this supposed federal “civics” bill for what it is: an opportunity for Biden’s education bureaucrats to fill students’ heads with CRT.
Seduced by the lure of what they think is good old-fashioned “civics,” three naïve Republican senators — John Cornyn, Bill Cassidy, and James Inhofe — have signed onto CSDA as co-sponsors. Maybe that’s why Republicans on the Hill have been reluctant to openly criticize this “bipartisan” legislation. Now, however, public opposition from so prominent a Republican office-holder as Ron DeSantis may break the logjam and shift momentum against this dangerous bill.
Last year, DeSantis made a major update to Florida’s civics standards. As revised by DeSantis, Florida’s standards now highlight the benefits of the free market and of America’s constitutional system, while explicitly comparing the advantages of America’s institutions to socialist, communist, and authoritarian regimes. That is not how America’s left-dominated education establishment does civics. Yet it’s exactly what parents in many states want.
Nothing threatens a state’s ability to go this traditional route more than federal grants administered by Biden’s pro-CRT Department of Education. Yet that is what CSDA is. The Civics Secures Democracy Act is a series of baited hooks — civics grants with strings attached by Biden’s leftist bureaucrats. On top of that, CSDA’s state grants are tied to student performance on a national test, which gives the designers of the federal test (who are chosen by Biden) de facto control over state standards and curricula.
Understanding this, last week DeSantis slammed the Civics Secures Democracy Act for trying to “buy off states with $6 billion if they sacrifice American History for Critical Race Theory and Biden’s other political whims of the day.” It’s easy to see why DeSantis accused Biden of planning to use CSDA’s fat grants to “indoctrinate” students with CRT. Last year, at around the same time DeSantis was releasing his revisions to Florida’s civics standards, the Biden administration published a rule assigning priority to history and civics grants that follow in the footsteps of CRT theorist Ibram X. Kendi and the infamous 1619 Project.
This is how we got Common Core. Obama stuffed a lavishly funded federal grant program called Race to the Top into his 2009 stimulus bill. No one noticed at the time, but those grants soon transformed American education by stripping the states of their curricular autonomy. Obama made acceptance of Common Core a condition of applying for Race to the Top money. Cash-strapped states quickly complied, thereby sacrificing the lion’s share of control over their own curricular content. CSDA works the same way. To get the latest tranche of fat federal education grants, states will have to please bureaucrats who we already know — from Biden’s 2021 rule and a series of other signals — strongly favor CRT.
Don’t underestimate how difficult it is for a governor to say no to a bill filled with federal grants for states. Remember, 48 states promised to adopt Common Core — many of them before they even knew what was in it — just to get those big federal bucks. Texas governor Rick Perry took a lot of heat from Democrats and the press at the time for turning down Obama’s stimulus money. Perry used to say, “The academic standards of Texas are not for sale.” DeSantis’s rejection of Biden’s attempt to “buy off states with $6 billion dollars if they sacrifice American History for Critical Race Theory” is in the same vein. So far, DeSantis is the first and only governor to take that bold stand on CSDA. Sadly, this kind of independent stance is rare.
DeSantis hit back at CSDA at an event announcing the results of Florida’s 2022 civics assessments. In general, Florida students this year scored better on civics tests than they had the year before. The improvement rates for all minority students were especially impressive. African-American students in particular had the highest rate of improvement, which means that the civics “achievement gap” between white and African-American students has narrowed significantly.
You might think this would give Florida the inside track for federal grants under CSDA. After all, the bill instructs the secretary of Education to give priority to proposals with the greatest prospects of helping “underserved” students narrow civics achievement gaps. Unfortunately, the opposite is true.
Under the theory favored by the left-dominated education establishment, the best way to help poor, minority, and recent immigrant students (the “underserved”) is to abandon traditional approaches to American history and civics, while substituting CRT-style curricula instead. No matter how good DeSantis’s results, Biden’s bureaucrats would have the power under CSDA to define what truly benefits the “underserved.” And time and again we’ve seen that Biden’s Education Department goes the CRT route — all the while fighting DeSantis-style attempts to revitalize traditional history and civics.
With Biden in control of a federal civics test tied to eligibility for state grants, it’s tough to see how governors in search of federal funds will be able to conduct meaningful state assessments of civics, especially if they adopt more traditional standards, on the Florida model. Schools “teach to the test.” But will they be teaching to a statewide test tied to distinctive state standards, or to a federal test tied to Biden’s leftist vision of civics and history? CSDA will make the federal test all powerful, a backdoor route to de facto federal control over state standards and curriculum.
The fight over CSDA is also a window onto the struggle to define the Republican Party. Two of the bill’s Republican co-sponsors have led pushes for bipartisan legislation, Cornyn on guns and Cassidy on infrastructure. (NR’s Editors opposedboth of those bills.) On the other side, so far only former President Trump, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and now Governor DeSantis have publicly opposed the Civics Secures Democracy Act. (For Trump’s remarks on CSDA, see 1:26-1:33 of this speech.) The latter three are probably the savviest, most influential, and most effective Republicans when it comes to fighting the good fight on cultural issues. Which way will the party go? Above all, will congressional Republicans have the gumption to publicly break with their credulous colleagues by openly criticizing CSDA?
Cornyn and Cassidy have fallen into the Democrats’ trap and opened the door to the nationalization of CRT, all in pursuit of a bogus bipartisanship. At the very moment when conservatives have a fighting chance to take back the culture — or at least to carve out a cultural redoubt of our own — a few naïve senators are on the verge of handing our schools over to the Left. Should CSDA become law, whether Republicans take Congress in 2022 or not, Biden will have de facto control of America’s education system until the end of his term. This is madness, and political suicide, too. What will happen when the Republican base wakes up to find that our own senators have delivered America’s schools into the hands of CRT propagandists?
Ron DeSantis is willing to fight the cultural fight, and smart enough to know how the game is played. He is leading on civics, and on many other cultural issues as well. Kudos to him for taking on the fake federal civics bill. Let’s hope more Republicans follow his lead.
Our national mythology has also clearly hampered our capacity to respond to gun violence — a favorite line of the N.R.A. is that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This delusion, disproved in Uvalde and countless times before, flows directly from Hollywood fantasy and underlies arguments about arming teachers, expanding open-carry laws and ushering armed law enforcement into more and more public spaces.
Surely the lesson of Uvalde is that you cannot rely on the police to protect you.
“In this we have to be scientific, see what science tells us today. Science today and any book on embryology, the one our medical students study, tells you that 30 days after conception there is DNA and the laying out already of all the organs.”
He asked, “Is it legitimate, is it right, to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem?” He insisted, “It’s a human life – that’s science. The moral question is whether it is right to take a human life to solve a problem.”
“Indeed, is it right to hire a hit man to solve a problem?”
Pope Francis made the remarks in an hour-and-a-half-long interview with Reuters correspondent Philip Pullella, published on Monday.
(He’s compared abortion to hiring a hitman before.)
He strongly condemned abortion, comparing it to “hiring a hit man”. The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception.
“I ask: Is it legitimate, is it right, to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem?”
It’s unfortunate they it leaves out the science part. You don’t have to be a Catholic to understand what you see on a sonogram. You don’t have to believe in God to acknowledge that there is new life developing at conception. Joe Biden has said women should have the right to abort a child. Even if it was a slip up, forgetting about the euphemisms the abortion industry has insisted on, I appreciated the honesty. Let’s be honest about what abortion is. Abortion advocates are fighting for the right of a mother to end the life of her developing child.
On Independence Day, let’s reflect on how we can better protect life and the pursuit of happiness, not put them at odds when a pregnancy is unplanned.
For when it pleased God to institute a religion here on earth he surely did not intend that it should remain hidden in darkness and sequestered from the eyes of mankind. As it is to serve to glorify him, it cannot be sufficient for it to remain shut up in the secret of men’s hearts: it must be visible and by its splendor contribute to raise in us ideas worthy of the greatness of the master to whom it subjects us, and proposes as the object of our worship. For this purpose were ordained the public ceremonies of religion; the solemn celebration of our august mysteries; and in a word all the outward duties which accompany the service of God. If then we purpose merely to confine ourselves to a pretended religion of the heart; without drawing any outward appearances of it, we betray a disposition so severely condemned by Jesus Christ in these remarkable words (Lk 9:26). He that is ashamed of me, and of my words, of him likewise will the son of God be ashamed, him will he disavow on the great day of judgment, in the presence of his Father, and the angels, in the face of heaven and earth.
But the evil proceeds farther by our withholding from God our public and apparent testimony to his holy religion; and we transgress another important obligation, namely that of the example which every believer owes to the society of which he is a member. For we are all but one body in Christ, and that which strengthens and gives vigor to this mystical body is the common edification mutually given and received, and resulting from the outward functions of religion, which make the greater impression, as we are naturally more encouraged to imitate what we see. But if, on the other hand, this outward worship begins to be neglected, all languishes with it: the idea of religion itself begins to fade away in our minds; impiety avails itself of this neglect and introduces not only a disgust, but even a contempt of all public and every private worship. From hence may be concluded how important the duty is, to which I now exhort you, the duty of honoring your religion.
Around noon on Saturday, outside the back door of Old St. Patrick’s Basilica in lower Manhattan, a slim young woman with a modest, long, frilly dress and round sunglasses stood with a single rose and a handwritten sign “God F***Ing LOVES Abortion.” Love was underlined twice.
There was a P.S. to her sign: “God is def. trans.” She ended the second message with a hand-drawn heart.
That was a haunting end to the morning, capturing the depths of woundedness on display in protests to our monthly Witness to Life for the month of July. (It’s organized by the Respect Life Office of the Archdiocese of New York and Franciscan Friars of the Renewal.) This has been going on for about 15 years. In the last year, especially (but it would happen pre-COVID as well), We’ve gotten used to people protesting our prayer. Increasingly, too, we’ve gotten used to human blockages as we simply process the block across the street from Planned Parenthood where we pray the Rosary.
The ideological slant in most “news stories” is now commonplace. In the letter below, Professor Don Boudreaux points out an egregious case in the Washington Post.
A reader encountering your headline “Summer in America is becoming hotter, longer and more dangerous” (July 3) can be forgiven for supposing that more and more Americans are dying from summer heat. This same reader, however, is surprised to find in the report no evidence of any such trend. (Quoting a professor’s claim that “[w]e can start saying people are dying because of climate change” isn’t evidence, especially because this quotation is accompanied neither by a link nor by a reference to data.)
I suspect that the reason your writers offer no evidence that summer heat is increasingly deadly in America is that the evidence shows the opposite. As Reason’s science correspondent Ron Bailey recently reported, “a January 2021 study in Weather, Climate, and Society (WCS), which looked at national heat mortality trends based on data from the 107 largest cities in the U.S., reported that the relative risk of dying from heat exposure has been falling in most regions since 1975.”
Summers might well be getting hotter and longer. But at the same time we humans are growing wealthier. Health care and weather forecasting are improving; building materials provide better insulation; travel to cooler climes is increasingly affordable; and most significantly, air conditioning is more widespread in homes, schools, workplaces, and transportation vehicles. It’s about time for climate reporters to stop assuming that the only possible means of mitigating harm from climate change is to slow or to prevent such change. Evidence shows that we are quite innovative at finding ways to live with climate change – ways that arguably are not only less costly than are grand and often fanciful schemes to reduce carbon emissions, but also quite likely to be more successful than are these schemes at actually saving lives.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
I would add that slanted “reporting” always goes in the same direction. After pointing out some purported crisis, the piece inevitably pushes the notion that more government action is the solution. You never see stories about terrible conditions where the implicit or explicit conclusion is that government is at fault or that voluntary action might lead to the best solution. If it’s true that summers are getting hotter, why can’t we adapt to that with all the great stuff the free market makes available rather than going on a crusade against fossil fuels?
There are many stripes on the Pride flag, but even as that flag becomes a bit cluttered, it still isn’t as expansive as the American flag, because the national flag’s stars (and stripes) represent the 50 states. This Fourth, more than usually, we celebrate the vast diversity of the Republic. You live your way of life, I’ll live my way. We should all be proud to live in a country that honors freedom so thoroughly.
David French and others have argued that we’re heading toward something like another civil war, because different states have such different theories of what liberty and justice mean. But why have a war at all? If Texans don’t like the abortion policies of Texas, they are free to become Californians or New Yorkers. The same goes in reverse. Calling U-Haul strikes me as a great deal easier than forming a regiment. My sense of Democrats in Texas is, however, that they love their state, abortion restrictions or no. Perhaps we can even learn that if your very neighbors don’t think the same way as you, that’s okay too. The New Yorkergets it!
Thinking of most questions as being definitively answered by nine unelected people in Washington is a bad habit that America is perhaps finally growing out of. I look forward to the day when Americans can, instead of marching pointlessly in the streets every time they don’t like a decision that affects other Americans far away, calmly explain to visitors from other countries that we are a gorgeous mosaic of sovereign states. Each enjoys its own ability to decide on what is best for that state, with the exception of a few constitutional matters, such as freedom of worship, the right to due process, and the right to bear arms, that the Founders declared were non-negotiable bedrock rights of all Americans, no matter what state. We have much in common — the Constitution — but much freedom to take our individual states in different directions. The Supreme Court is enhancing the freedom of states to be different. To paraphrase a saying popular in a city full of Texan Democrats: Keep America weird.
Each Fourth of July, many progressives claim that America is not worth celebrating. Last year, that included members of the House of Representatives. Cori Bush (D., Mo.) argued that “this land is stolen and Black people still aren’t free” and Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) asserted that “they weren’t thinking about us” in 1776. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, some commentators are already arguing that “the Constitution will always be a hell of an excuse to oppress Black folks on behalf of white supremacy.” On the homepage today, I respond to a version of this perennial argument that the American Revolution was fundamentally flawed, or even a “mistake” altogether, because it defended slavery.
But I wanted to follow up here to emphasize that this is the wrong lens through which to view our Founding Fathers. The idea that they unanimously approved of slavery or had no intention of outlawing it is not true. Multiple northern states such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished the practice immediately after the Revolution, citing their newfound independence as reason for doing so. Still, the Founders’ failure to outlaw slavery completely from America’s inception should be the cause of great sorrow for us, but not sorrow so great that we renounce their entire legacy. Many activists, both ill- and well-intentioned, have made that mistake. But the greatest warriors for freedom, justice, and equality throughout American history were those who looked back to the Founding in their activism.
During the Civil War and the period leading up to it, the abolitionists challenged our country to live up to the promises of the Founding documents. They did so in the face of the Confederacy, whose supporters believed that the Constitution contained a right to slavery, which was, in the words of their predecessor, John C. Calhoun, “an essential element in the distribution of its powers among the States.” When his state of South Carolina seceded from the Union, it did so because its legislators believed that the efforts of anti-slavery politicians “ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.” One of the first to oppose them was William Lloyd Garrison, who, while he had a noble cause, did not always argue for it in the best way. In an 1854 speech on the Fourth of July, he called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell” and burned a copy of the document as he said it.
Many of his fellow abolitionists saw his attacks on the Founding as counterproductive. Among them was Frederick Douglass. Each Independence Day, progressives love to quote his “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” speech, in which he denounces the hypocrisy of a country celebrating freedom while keeping millions of souls in chains. No one today will counter Douglass on that argument, which he spends the first half of his speech outlining. Curiously, though, those who use the speech to bash the Founding usually do not quote the second half, in which Douglass calls the Constitution a “glorious liberty document.” He goes on to say that there is not “a single pro-slavery clause in it” and that “there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution.”
Douglass was joined in his love for the Founding by President Abraham Lincoln, who, in the days leading up to his presidency, called the Declaration’s promise of liberty to all an “apple of gold.” That principle was a treasure that needed proper adornment. That was supplied by the Constitution, the “picture of silver.” He carried that attitude with him into his presidency. In his Gettysburg Address, he told the crowd that America was “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” calling upon them to give the nation a “new birth of freedom” by winning the Civil War and ending slavery. For Douglass and Lincoln, the Declaration and Constitution allowed the best parts of each other to shine forth and make the country a better place for its citizens. This belief allowed them to rise above their contemporaries, both friends and foes, and bring freedom to those who lacked it.
Unfortunately, the fight did not end at Appomattox, and black people in Southern states endured a century of inequality due to Jim Crow laws. Segregationists argued that their actions were in the tradition of the Founding. In his “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” speech, Governor George Wallace of Alabama reminded his audience “that a Southerner, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the Declaration of Independence, that a Southerner, George Washington, is the Father of our country that a Southerner, James Madison, authored our Constitution.” It is not a coincidence that he only cited slave-owners. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Malcolm X was rightly horrified at the mistreatment of black people, but his solutions were not the most effective. In his pursuit of black nationalism, he argued that “the Constitution was written by whites for the benefit of whites. It was never written for the benefit of blacks.”
As the country learned almost a century before, however, the way to make America better is to recognize the goodness of its Founding. The person who stood out the most in the civil-rights movement was Martin Luther King Jr., who had an appreciation for the Constitution from an early age. He won a speech contest in high school, in which he called American slavery a “strange paradox,” given the country’s commitment to freedom. He knew that the Founding principles were antithetical to any form of racism, and he vowed to be “imbued with the spirit of Lincoln” to fight the vestiges of enslavement. It was that commitment that led him to declare in his “I Have a Dream” speech that “when the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” King saw himself in the tradition of Lincoln and Douglass, fulfilling the Founding promise through his cause, not remaking or renouncing it. He is the namesake of a national holiday because of it.
All these people succeeded because they drew their inspiration and philosophies from the great men who drafted the Declaration and the Constitution. Many of those statesmen were emboldened to begin erasing the stain of slavery in their own time, and their posterity made America live up ever more to its Founding promise. Independence Day is a celebration not only of our country’s founding, but also of the people who have improved it throughout the ages. These advances all stem from the documents that created our nation, and we should rejoice at the bravery of those who created and nurtured them.
Football and basketball coaches’ salaries at big universities are jaw-droppingly high. They’re also pretty substantial at lesser schools too. And it’s not always easy to find out exactly how much they’re being paid.
In today’s Martin Center article, Ashlynn Warta looks at head-coaching salaries throughout the UNC system, ranging from the big powerhouses (Chapel Hill and NC State) to the small schools like Elizabeth City State.
She reports that base salaries are a matter of public record (topped in football by the $2.4 million the head coach at NC State makes) but also that there is a good deal of supplemental compensation that is not. Warta writes, “While these base-pay data are helpful, they don’t give the entire picture. With ‘other pay’— sponsorships, benefits, etc.—it is likely that base pay is merely the tip of the iceberg.”
Also, most coaches have a “buyout” clause that can add a lot to the total. “As with salaries,” Warta continues, “buyout amounts vary widely, but they can become hefty depending on which coach is under discussion. For example, Roy Williams, who retired as UNC-Chapel Hill’s men’s basketball coach last year, had a total compensation package of $4,168,250 in 2021 and a whopping $7,612,500 buyout.”
Jack Butler put up a fine post on the Corner on Saturday to mark the 40th anniversary of Blade Runner, a film that, in my view, is the greatest science-fiction movie ever made. Jack notes that Blade Runner was “underappreciated” on its initial release. That’s true, although I can remember reading the reviews at the time it first hit British cinemas and deciding then and there that this was something that needed seeing. And soon. I was right.
Contrary to many, I liked the voiceover and, indeed, the original ending (which, appropriately enough, featured leftover footage from The Shining, to some, the greatest horror film ever made, although both it and Blade Runner are masterpieces that transcend their genre). As for the different cuts of Blade Runner (I have seen a number of them), there’s a way beyond the obvious in which, collectively, they add to a film in which memory is malleable and the hero may, unknowingly, not be what he thinks.
Meanwhile, the news has been released that Joe Turkel, so memorable as Eldon Tyrell, the scientist and entrepreneur behind the Tyrell Corporation (a company so far overlooked by Capital Matters: This must change), died on June 27 at the grand old age of 94. Until reading his obituary, I was unaware, shockingly, that, in a second connection between The Shining and Blade Runner, he had also played Lloyd, the bartender at the Overlook, another extraordinary performance. RIP.
Jack describes Blade Runner as neo-noir, which indeed it is, and also singles out Vangelis’s soundtrack, rightly so. That soundtrack, of course, includes, “One More Kiss, Dear,” a song that brilliantly links an imagined future to a lost past, a pastiche, of course, but in a film when memory can be confected, the real thing would not have been . . . right. In The Shining, by contrast, Kubrick went back to the 1930s, close enough to the Overlook’s greatest — if that’s the word — years, resurrecting a recording of “Midnight, the Stars and You,” sung by Al Bowlly, who was later killed during a German bomb attack on London in 1941, but not before he had recorded a version of an Irving Berlin song anticipating the day when Hitler would be no more:
When that man is dead and gone
When they lay him twelve feet deep
I’ll be there to laugh, not weep . . .
Advocates of big government have a number of rejoinders to the argument made by free-market supporters that minimum-wage laws are a bad idea. They like to say, e.g., that a research study showed that raising the minimum wage doesn’t lead to unemployment.
Fuller writes that “skilled economic communicators like Don Boudreaux, Robert Murphy, and Steven Landsburg, have been patiently dissecting every last argument for the minimum wage. They’ve been originating countless new thought experiments, analogies, and parables to convey the consequences of price floors. And in many cases, they’ve pointed out the flaws in empirical studies, but I haven’t seen a one-stop-shop where these problems are succinctly described.”
Among Fuller’s points are the existence of non-wage adjustments that employers make when government demands higher wages, that workers can become “underemployed,” and that employers can’t immediately adjust to higher wages, so studies done over short periods of time will be misleading.
If you want to be well-armed against those who say that minimum-wage laws don’t have adverse effects, read Fuller’s article.
One of the problems with the Biden White House’s scapegoating strategy for high gas prices is that even if the president succeeds in diverting blame from his administration to oil companies, gas station operators, or Vladimir Putin . . . he, and the country, are still stuck with high gas prices.
Demand for gasoline peaks in summer. Gas prices have come down a bit from their peak – about twenty cents per gallon nationally over the past three weeks – but they’re still at an astronomically high price by the standards of recent history, averaging $4.81 for a gallon of regular nationwide.
We don’t know exactly what gas prices will be through July and August, but they’ll probably still be very high. It’s probably going to be several months before they decline below the previous record level of $4.17 per gallon. We don’t know what the price for a gallon when voters cast ballots in November 2022, but we know it will be significantly higher than the $2.10 per gallon national average of two years earlier. The public anger won’t dissipate, and no matter how much blame gets assigned to these other entities, voters will start to ask, “wait, wasn’t this president supposed to restore normalcy?”
Eventually the scapegoating message starts to sound like helplessness: “I wish I could bring down the price of gas, but there’s not much I can do. Russia won’t stop its invasion, OPEC won’t produce more oil, the oil companies are too greedy, the gas station owners are too greedy, Congress won’t temporarily suspend the federal gas tax of 18 cents per gallon, most states won’t temporarily suspend their state gas taxes… there’s just nothing I can do.”
That’s not too different from Biden’s overall message on inflation, or high food prices, or baby formula shortages, or lingering supply chain problems, or the insecure border, or anything else.
If Biden’s message always seems to be some variation of, “I’d like to help, but other forces won’t cooperate, so there’s just not much I can do,” many voters are likely to respond, “if you can’t do anything to help with my problems… then what do we need you for?”
MBD had a good post on Friday urging people to give to our current webathon to support the work of Alexandra DeSanctis, who has been so stalwart on the issue of life. If you think we need advocates for our cause who have zero tolerance for BS, who are unfazed — indeed, amused — by the abuse hurled their way, who know much more than their adversaries, who refuse to get discouraged by the never-ending deceit and obfuscation thrown up by the other side, who are tireless and passionate, well, then, I humbly suggest you do the right thing and back Xan’s important work. Courage, persistence, and attention to detail are invaluable qualities, and we’re hoping you can affirm them with a contribution of any amount. Whatever you give will be instantly doubled because we have a friend who has generously agreed to match any contribution up to $100,000. Thank you!
Editor’s Note:The following U.S. Navy pronoun directive was leaked to National Review at great personal risk. It would seem that the Navy’s recent pronoun training video has left many sailors confused about what pronouns are, how to use them, and why they should care. This document is super legitimate and comes from an anonymous leaker in the Navy and not from the desk of Luther Abel.
IT HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS THAT SAILORS ARE MISGENDERING THEIR SHIPMATES. DUE TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE VALUE OF ACCURATE SAILOR GENDERING, THE CNO HAS PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING GUIDE FOR ALL SAILORS’ BENEFITS. AS WORDS ARE VIOLENCE, SAILORS HENCEFORTH FOUND GUILTY OF MISGENDERING WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR “ASSAULT” UNDER ARTICLE 128 OF THE UCMJ.
Subjective Personal Pronouns — he/she/they
He — HE went to captain’s mast for mansplaining the CIWS system to the junior sailors.
She — SHE avoided FOD walkdown by claiming that skating was mindfulness training.
They — THEY identify as an attack helicopter and so will be provided a hangar bay berth and a ration of JP-5.
Objective Personal Pronouns — him/her/them
Him — “G**d*** these m*****f******. F*** HIM, and F*** you,” said MM2 Hernandez inclusively, as MM2 Abel and GSM2 Guerrero tardily stumbled into Central to assume the 0200 Sounding and Security watches.
Her — “I’m giving HER all she’s got,” said the red-shirted engineer destined to receive 100 percent disability from the VA post-service.
Them — “I would never gundeck like THEM,” said Seaman Timmy observing his nonbinary first class petty officer’s dirtbag demeanor. Seaman Timmy would days later would begin a long and storied career of gundecking maintenance, logs, and personal qualifications. He would retire a senior chief.
Possessive Personal Pronouns — his/her/their
His — HIS qualifications were signed off upon the training petty officer’s receipt of a Monster and a pack of Marlboro Reds.
Her(s) — HER chain of command prolonged morning quarters by tactically piggybacking off of one another for a record thirty-eight hours straight.
Their — THEIR coffee cup was host to new life forms, having been unwashed for seven deployments and three INSURV periods.
That Britain has become a poster child for the stupidities of the current state of climate policy does not say much for its governing (if that’s the word) Conservative party. That all Britain’s other major parties would push the climate agenda in roughly the same direction does not change that fact, or the increasing possibility that the Tories, having squandered their great victory in 2019, are headed for defeat in 2024.
Writing for the Daily Telegraph, David Frost, a senior Conservative now sitting in the House of Lords, has a few things to say about where things are going:
The Government must realise that it faces a crisis. In the short run it must keep the lights on or pay a heavy price. It should then drop the mad dash for medieval wind power technology and focus on the only acceptably low-carbon form of power available – gas. Get shale gas extraction going, commit long-term to the North Sea, put in place proper storage – and build some new gas power stations. By all means commit to nuclear, too – but only gas solves the problems in a meaningful time frame.
Frost knows, but is, perhaps, too polite to mention, that it was power rationing that, more than anything else, destroyed the Tory government led by Ted Heath from 1970-74. In terms of personality or superficial political style, Boris Johnson could not be more different than Heath even if, at a deeper level, there are some interesting similarities. Nevertheless, there will be a certain irony if the prime ministers who, respectively, took Britain into and out of the EU (or in Heath’s case, what became the EU) are destroyed by energy rationing.
Read on, however, to find this:
I fear a different world view is now deeply embedded across politics. It’s one that sees industrial civilisation as damaging to the planet and low energy use as desirable. It’s one that thinks some form of original sin was committed in this country by James Watt and Richard Arkwright, for which we must now expiate – a view shared by the Prime Minister, to judge by his comments in Glasgow at Cop26.
There is no rational reason that climate policy had to go in the direction that it has, but one key reason has been the persistent power of a pre-modern millenarian fantasy that has, in one form or another (Marxism is one variant), existed for a very long time.
And such millenarian fantasies are often (although not in the case of some of Marx’s immediate heirs, a good number of whom shared a Promethean vision of a world reshaped by technology) accompanied by an urge to abandon technological advance. That’s one reason why so many of the solutions that would, as presented, solve the problems caused by a supposed climate “crisis” are rejected.
Lord Frost, however, is having none of it.
Modern civilisation needs energy, and lots of it. Abundant energy powered the Industrial Revolution and everything that came with it – proper housing, enough food, scientific and medical advances, economic growth that frees up time to do things you like doing as well as working.
I don’t like poverty, I don’t like artificial limits on human aspiration and potential, and when you don’t have enough energy you get a lot of both. That’s why we need to change tack now. We need an energy policy that delivers power, at acceptable cost, whenever we need it – because an advanced economy without that will not stay advanced for long.
The summer of 1982 was a pretty good one for sci-fi movies. In addition to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there was John Carpenter’s The Thing, E. T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (the latter two an . . . interesting pairing), and, of course, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. Underappreciated in its initial release (thanks in part to the version seen by most audiences at the time, which includes some rather amusing voiceover narrations from star Harrison Ford and a different ending), Blade Runner has grown in stature over the years. Its neo-noir atmosphere, enhanced by an indelible Vangelis score (R.I.P.) and dominated by giant cities, soulless mega-corporations, and synthetic humanoids, endures as a pop-culture landmark to the present day. Its influence can be seen in countless creations in a variety of media since (including a pretty good sequel directed by Dune director Denis Villeneuve and released in 2017).
As it came out 40 years ago this month, the retrospectives are now circulating. In Esquire, Tom Ward argues that Blade Runner “arguably defined not just 1980s science fiction, but in the forty years since its initial release, sci-fi films in general”:
Famously, the film was a critical and commercial flop in the U.S. with VHS sales and endless re-edits eventually leading to its cult status. (In 2004, it was even voted as the best science fiction film of all time by a panel of global scientists). Today, it’s difficult to picture a sci-fi film that doesn’t play homage. Would HBO’s Westworld have updated its 1973 film version so successfully and stylishly without Blade Runner paving the way both visually and in terms of its musings on free will? And, decades before Elon Musk looked set to take over the world, Blade Runner’s Tyrell Corporation (and indeed, Alien’s Weyland-Yutani) was inspiring evil empires from Resident Evil’s Umbrella Corporation to RoboCop’s Omni Consumer Products and The Terminator’s Cyberdyne Systems.
Meanwhile, at the Hollywood Reporter, Ryan Parker resurrects an old interview with co-star Rutger Hauer, in which Hauer claims that Roy Batty, the rogue android Ford’s Rick Deckard is tasked with exterminating (with extreme prejudice?), is not, in fact, a villain:
In an interview for the film’s 1982 release, the Netherlands-born Hauer, while being flattered by a journalist about his good looks, was asked why he would want to play a “villain” in the film when he was handsome enough to be the hero. A polite Hauer responded that he did not see his character, Roy Batty, in the same light.
“I don’t think this is a villain,” he began. “What is wrong with a man — from the point where they start chasing him, he just wants to live a little longer. He hasn’t done so much harm. You don’t see him do any harm, and then they start chasing him down. He has to fight once in a while because that’s survival.”
Whatever you think of Hauer’s ambiguity on this question — not even the most famous ambiguity about the film — Batty’s final moments are undoubtedly some of the finest in science fiction. The character’s dying monologue, written in collaboration with Hauer, achieved the immortality he himself cannot, and helped the film to do the same:
Another vision for women’s equality and liberty exists that challenges rather than accepts the ideal of autonomy. The 18th-century English philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, author of “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” and her heirs that were in the 19th-century American women’s rights movement sought civil and political rights so they might better fulfill their responsibilities to others. As Wollstonecraft reasoned, “The only method of leading women to fulfill their peculiar duties is to free them from all restraint by allowing them to participate the inherent rights of mankind.”
So while Wollstonecraft viewed persons as individuals justly protected by rights, as she vied for equality, she urged both women and men not to dismiss their responsibility to others. For her, maternal and paternal responsibilities began not when the child was born, but when he or she was still developing in the mother’s womb. Achieving the kind of moral maturity that would regard service to and care of others as life-giving and fulfilling was life’s goal.
As the nascent child shares her mother’s body, the mother depends upon many others for her own sustenance and flourishing. This is the case in every pregnancy, of course. But the need of the expectant mother becomes more acute when she is poor or ill, or her life or health is endangered by the pregnancy. The woman with child means two vulnerable patients for doctors to care for and for insurance to support; capacious workplace accommodations and financial assistance; paternal duties expected, not ignored.
Without robust societal support of pregnant women and child-rearing families, too many pregnant women will be left to regard their unborn children as trespassers on their already taxed lives rather than unbidden gifts that open new horizons to them. These women need society’s utmost assistance — not abortion, or scorn.
It’s about damn time. That’s the first thing to be said about the arrest in the murder of Julissia Batties by her mother, Navasia Jones, and her half-brother Paul Fine Jr. It’s been almost a year since the 7-year-old girl was found beaten to death in Jones’ Bronx apartment. And it didn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out who was responsible.
According to the district attorney, Fine assaulted her between Aug. 8 and Aug. 10, and Jones failed to get medical help while her daughter was dying. The beatings were so bad, they damaged her internal organs and she had bruises all over her body. Oh, and she was sexually abused as well.
But even if Jones and Fine spend the rest of their lives in jail, there is plenty more work to be done to fix the system that failed Julissia.
Let’s hear it for the former foster children on TikTok clapping back against the pro-abortion rights narrative that their lives are so miserable they’d be better off dead.
You know the narrative. It goes something like this: There are children conceived into bad situations, including abusive homes and cycles of poverty, and therefore, abortion must be legal to ensure their parents can end their lives and preempt their suffering.
“I have seen firsthand what happens to children born to parents who don’t want them,” one foster mother explained tearfully on TikTok. Her takeaway was clear: It would be better if the children had never been born, an outcome the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will threaten.
Call up a local pregnancy center and commit to a monthly donation. Support political leaders who not only restrict abortion but provide new resources for mothers in crisis. Volunteer to accompany single mothers not only during pregnancy, but also beyond. Fast one day a week and donate the money you save to Catholic Charities or other organizations that provide for mothers in need. And men, answer the call to be a father to the fatherless.
There are myriad ways we can practically apply our theology to the pro-life issue. As individuals and churches consider how to engage at this monumental moment, these suggestions are meant to be a starting point, not all-encompassing.
Lead a Bible study or Sunday school series studying the imago Dei or similar content and seek to develop a holistically pro-life ethic among your church body.
Partner with a pregnancy center near your church.
Create a resource closet or list of resources available for mothers in unexpected pregnancies.
Pray for pro-life ministries that provide care to women and families facing an unexpected pregnancy, and support their work.
Attend a pro-life conference with members of your church.
Provide community and care for single mothers in your church.
Help post-abortive women and men connect with ministries like Support After Abortion that provide support in the healing process.
Adoption and Foster Care
Prepare your church to step in and support families in crisis who are at risk of having their children removed from the home.
Start an adoption fund from your church through Lifesong for Orphans, so that your church can provide grants to families in your community who want to adopt.
Share about ways the church can pursue adoption with gospel-centered agencies.
Educate church members about how to get involved in your local foster care system.
Start an adoption and foster care support group for families in your church.
As the church engages abortion in a way that demonstrates our belief that all people are created in God’s image, our culture will be radically changed—even more than it has been by this Supreme Court ruling. This is an opportunity for the church to love people to Christ and help them in their journey. Let us not waste it.
In short, exposure to people with disabilities enables us to transform the abstract principle of human dignity into a lived reality. Thus, we cannot move from rationally understanding the value of life in all its diversity, complexity, and beauty to living it out in our actions unless we come to know, befriend, and yes, even dislike people with disabilities—that is, until we invite them into the entirety of the messy human experience.
Now more than ever, the pro-life movement must recognize and rectify our failures in this area. Unfortunately, many of us lack this necessary exposure to disabled people in our daily life, leaving us just as vulnerable as those who are pro-choice to subconsciously devaluing their lives. Access barriers and refusals to accommodate keep people with disabilities out of our social, educational, and employment spaces, including those run by pro-life entities. Fear and lack of familiarity cause us not to approach. And our squeamishness in the face of suffering urges us to avert our gaze. But if we don’t have disabled friends, loved ones, colleagues, church members, or customers in our lives, how can we ever hope to convince a terrified mother, newly armed with a life-altering diagnosis and bombarded by her doctors to abort, that there is another way? If we do not have a realistic understanding of the time, energy, and resources it takes to raise a profoundly disabled child, or if we have never walked the road with someone who carries a terminal child to term, how can our hearts possibly contain the compassion and charity necessary to assist a stranger?
If we do not take a serious accounting of our approach to disabled lives outside the womb, we stand a huge chance that the lives of unborn disabled children will remain a viable bargaining chip in state legislatures across the country. If we only understand the intrinsic worth of disabled lives with our rational intellect rather than also through our personal experiences, then we will lack the adequate drive to advocate their protection, and we will risk allowing the right to kill a disabled child to remain a temporary or permanent part of the compromises forged at the state level.
A Chinese pastor who is currently in prison is Wang Yi. His pen name is Wang Shuya. He is the founding pastor of the Early Rain Covenant Church, a Calvinist house church in Chengdu. He is also a writer, editor, and social activist, and was a legal scholar at Chengdu University. In 2018 he was arrested along with dozens of church leaders as part of an continuing crackdown on all unauthorized religious groups in China. He was given a 9-year prison sentence for “inciting to subvert state power” and “illegal business operations”.
1 July 1936 | A Belgian Jewish boy, Andre Hartstein, was born in Antwerp. He emigrated with his family to France.
In Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court in Dobbs, he launched into a surprising attack on an old case, Lochner v. New York. That 1905 case involved a New York statute that put an upper limit on the number of hours that bakers were allowed to work. The Court invalidated the statute on the grounds that the 14th Amendment protects the individual’s liberty of contract.
Generations of law students have heard that decision berated as wrong, an abuse of judicial power. Apparently, Justice Alito imbibed that view because he made a swipe at Lochner in Dobbs.
In this Reason piece, Damon Root argues that the 14th Amendment indeed does protect liberty of contract. I think he’s right. The 14th Amendment ought to protect people against special-interest legislation (as was the case in Lochner) that deprives them of basic freedoms.
There is a tendency in some of the more pessimistic corners of American political discourse to liken contemporary America to the late-stage Soviet Union. This is a ridiculous comparison, for all sorts of reasons. With one exception: The way that the Soviet Union seemed dominated by a gerontocracy of old Communist Party hands (Reagan joked that they “kept dying on” him until Gorbachev showed up) does bear a slight resemblance to the political situation of the United States. Duke University sociology professor Kieran Healy recently shared a striking chart showing the increasing median age for a member of Congress:
The long, long shadow of the Watergate Babies. And this is just the trend at the median of all representatives. The Democratic leadership consists of people in their 80s who have been around for going on 50 years now, and who have been in charge since the turn of the millennium. pic.twitter.com/RBlI3sR9Ba
The chart shows Democrats being guiltier of this than Republicans. Likewise, a recent Spectator editorial focuses on the older Democrats largely in charge, chiefly President Biden himself, though admitting the counterexample of Trump for Republicans (it could have added Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, now 80, though not markedly changed from 20 years ago in his bearing):
The most powerful person in America not named Joe (no, not you, Kamala) is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who clocks in at eighty-two years of age. How long has Pelosi been around? She’s represented California in the House of Representatives for a fifth of the time California has been a state. Her counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, is a mere seventy-one years young, and no doubt likes to tease her with his spirited whippersnapping.
Also in the Senate is another Californian, Dianne Feinstein, who first came to national prominence when Harvey Milk was assassinated in 1978. At eighty-eight, Feinstein is older than them all, and according to the San Francisco Chronicle, it’s starting to show. She reportedly suffers from memory lapses and has difficulty following policy discussions. Until last year, she was the lead Democrat on the powerful Judiciary Committee.
Elsewhere we find Dr. Anthony Fauci, face of the government’s Covid response, age eighty-one; left-wing insurgent senator Bernie Sanders, voice of the millennial generation, age eighty; and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who turns eighty-three this month. How is America’s political pulse these days? It’s starting to feel a bit faint.
The Spectator finds it odd that a country so associated with youth and energy seems so dominated by the old. I think some of this is understandable; people are, as a rule, living longer and healthier lives today, and the strong correspondence between age and wealth that has built up enables the instantiation of existing hierarchies of power. Sometimes, this fact is even to be welcomed; the old have throughout history been looked to for their wisdom and experience. The very name “Senate” arises from “senex,” the Latin word for “old.” Conservatives, in particular, ought to have a reverence for what precedes them. As Abraham Lincoln once put it, “What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and the tried, against the new and the untried?” Often, the old can be more relied upon to serve as transmitters for proper inheritances, and bulwarks against fads and innovations that one should, in fact, resist. Moreover, many of them are great people, whose presence in one’s personal and professional life is to be welcomed.
But in other times and situations, this can get out of hand, as I think it has in modern politics. Much of our gerontocracy seems not to want to perpetuate proper goods but rather its own particular advantages and desires. (See, e.g., how existing entitlement programs steal from the young to give to the old, the former of whom have long, in my experience, ceased to expect any such munificence when we ourselves retire.) NR’s own Yuval Levin, also editor of National Affairs and director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at AEI, grappled with this problem as well in a recent New York Times essay.
Yuval argues, without wishing ill of the disproportionately elder people who dominate our political life, that their age has provided an enduring yet faulty framing for our nation’s self-understanding. As he puts it:
Consider what the country’s modern history looks like from the vantage point of an American born near the beginning of the postwar baby boom. Say you were born the same year as Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush and Mr. Trump, in 1946. Your earliest memories begin around 1950, and you recall the ’50s through the eyes of a child as a simple time of stability and wholesome values. You were a teenager in the early ’60s, and view that time through a lens of youthful idealism, rebellion and growing cultural self-confidence.
By the late 1960s and into the ’70s, as a 20-something entering the adult world, you found that confidence shaken. Idealism gave way to some cynicism about the potential for change, everything felt unsettled and the future seemed ominous and ambiguous. But by the 1980s, when you were in your 30s and early 40s, things had started settling down. Your work had some direction, you were building a family and concerns about mortgage payments largely replaced an ambition to transform the world.
By the 1990s, in your 40s and early 50s, you were comfortable and confident. It was finally your generation’s chance to take charge, and it looked to be working out.
As the 21st century dawned, you were still near the peak of your powers and earnings, but gradually peering over the hill toward old age. You soon found the 2000s filled with unexpected dangers and unfamiliar forces. The world was becoming less and less your own.
You reached retirement age in the 2010s amid growing uncertainty and instability. The culture was increasingly bewildering, and the economy seemed awfully insecure. The extraordinary blend of circumstances that defined the world of your youth seemed likely to be denied to your grandchildren. By now, it all feels that it’s spinning out of control. Is the chaotic, transformed country around you still the glittering land of your youth?
Yuval argues that, as a result of the dominance of something like this narrative in our political life, “our politics is implicitly directed toward recapturing some part of the magic of the mid-20th-century America of boomer youth,” both Left and Right. But he warns against replacing the wistfulness of the elderly simply with the energy and excitement of youth. Useful as those things can be in keeping D.C. and other polities running (the not-joke that Washington is really run by twentysomethings is confirmed by this recent New York Times article), youthfulness brings its own defects. Chief among the imperfections of the young are an impatience with existing forms and institutions, a bias toward novelty, an idealism (in D.C. often West Wing–inflicted) that can jell poorly with reality, and an abiding belief that history began the day they were born. with a concomitant ignorance of history. All such traits help explain why revolutionary movements throughout history have found their most-fervent devotees among the youth, and should make us skeptical of those who sell themselves primarily on their supposed youth or novelty. History — studied properly, not instrumentally — brings humility, another virtue that youth often lack.
Yuval’s preferred solution for a new dominant narrative of our national life would elevate Gen X’ers to supply a civic center between the excitation of the young and the regurgitation of the old. You’d think I, at 28, would resist such a self-interested call by a Gen X’er, but I do not. Younger Millennials and certainly Gen Z still have some maturation to do before they can properly assume control of national life. Gen X seems well positioned to steer it next.
If, that is, older generations ever get out the door.
“Did he or didn’t he grab the steering wheel of an SUV to try to join a mob marching toward the U.S. Capitol?” shouldn’t be a question that Republicans should want to ask or think about going into 2024. There’s a very easy way to avoid it, of course — nominating any of the many potential candidates who don’t have the vast and ever-growing baggage of Donald J. Trump.
I have to say I’ve been skeptical of the Trump SUV story since I first heard it. Maybe Cassidy Hutchinson did hear this story from Ornato, or legitimately believes she did, but I just don’t get how you grab the steering wheel from the back seat of a presumably quite large SUV. Andy, as usual, has been all over the various aspects of this story, so read his latest if you haven’t. Here’s the Washington Post account, and a relevant snippet:
Trump denied trying to grab the steering wheel, calling Hutchinson’s testimony “’sick’ and fraudulent.” Ornato and Engel were not asked about the incident when they testified to the committee, the person briefed on the Secret Service testimony said. . . .
Three agents who accompanied Trump on Jan. 6 are disputing that Trump assaulted or grabbed at Engel and/or the steering wheel, according to one current and one former law enforcement official familiar with their accounts. The three agents, Engle and Ornato are also willing to testify under oath to the committee about their recollection of events on Jan. 6 in the Secret Service vehicle, the two people said. The three agents do not dispute that Trump was furious that the agents would not take him to the Capitol.
If the committee has helped blow up Hutchinson’s credibility by not doing due diligence on this proverbial too-good-to-check story that’s not central to anything it’s trying to prove, it is political and investigatory malpractice of the first order.
In May, Congress made a fitful, unsatisfying attempt to reveal what the government knows about what we are now calling “unidentified aerial phenomena,” but which used to be known as UFOs. It already seems to have been forgotten about, alas. But others continue to ponder the possible implications of extraterrestrial life at a more theoretical level.
At Reason, Ron Bailey reports on an article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society by astrobiologists Michael Wong and Stuart Bartlett that attempts to answer the question that has baffled scientists (who tend to discount virtually all “evidence” that is offered as proof of extraterrestrial life): Where are the aliens? First formally pondered by Enrico Fermi, the conundrum, now stylized as the “Fermi paradox,” wonders where all the aliens in our galaxy are if they are sufficiently advanced to travel the stars. My favorite “solution” to this is the “Zoo hypothesis,” which posits that humanity is deliberately insulated from interstellar goings-on because we are insufficiently advanced. Wong and Barlett offer two different explanations: Their civilizations either grow so large and complex as to become unsustainable, or those in charge of said civilizations realize their unsustainable course and restrain it, thereby stalling the kind of development that would beget spacefaring. As Bailey puts it, “No alien visitors to Earth have been detected because they either destroy themselves or they choose to stay quietly at home.” He is right to note a kind of xeno-Malthusianism to this.
But if another study is correct, even if we do encounter some extraterrestrials, we might not need to be that worried about them. Vicereports on a paper by Alberto Caballero, a Ph.D. student at Vigo University in Spain, that attempts to estimate the number of potential hostile extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. His conclusion:
Caballero concludes that the probability of a hostile alien race invading Earth is low—very low. “The probability of extraterrestrial invasion by a civilization whose planet we message is, therefore, around two orders of magnitude lower than the probability of a planet-killer asteroid collision,” which is already a one-in-100-million-years event, he writes in the paper.
He also said that there is likely fewer than one malicious extraterrestrial civilization in the Milky Way that has also mastered interstellar travel, which would make them a so-called “Type 1” civilization.
Caballero makes what he admits are some “questionable” assumptions in his paper, basing it on Earth’s history and how life is known to exist; another world’s history or other forms of life could confound his findings.
At any rate, for now, it’s all just speculation. Unless (or until?) the next UAP hearing reveals unexpected information — or an unanticipated guest.
Happy Fourth of July! In celebration of this holiday of holidays, Rich, Charlie, Michael, and Andrew discuss various facets of this occasion for The Editors. The conversation largely revolves around the Revolution itself, and comparisons between it and other revolutions over the centuries. Rich quotes a moving Frederick Douglass line from his “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” speech, and Charlie uses it to explain what the Founders’ goal was — and was not. Listeners are also treated to interesting facts about Revolutionary-era figures — both the prominent and the under-appreciated — from this tumultuous and crucial moment in our history.
Our editors also touch on the theory that the U.S. is heading for a civil war (spoiler: It’s not) and wrap up with a meaningful discussion of America’s enduring strengths.
Celebrate this Fourth with fireworks, beer, games, and this very patriotic Editors episode.
You can watch my conversation with Maureen Ferguson, Ashley McGuire, and Leigh Snead about what needs to happen now at your convenience:
And do, of course, please feel free to share it.
Our conversation was co-sponsored by the National Review Institute and the Catholic Association. It’s the first in a Fridays for Life series NRI will be presenting virtually. Stay tuned in the coming days for information about next week’s edition.
In the aftermath of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, as well as the June 24 ruling itself, many companies outlined plans to subsidize travel by pregnant employees living in states with strong pro-life laws to obtain an abortion in states that don’t restrict it.
Few companies created benefits that covered abortion specifically or exclusively, though the timing of their announcements make their intentions quite clear. The day the decision was handed down, AT&T told employees that it would reimburse travel expenses for medical procedures that were unavailable within 100 miles, doing so without mentioning abortion. Its competitor, T-Mobile, created a similar policy at the beginning of May when the decision was leaked.
There is an interesting duality in the actions of these companies and others, one that progressives have already latched onto. At the same time that they are paying for their female employees to cross state lines for the purpose of obtaining abortions, they are also donating money to Republican political organizations.
The reason for this is most likely that companies have different needs in different regions of the country. AT&T’s national arms donate primarily to Democrats, according to Open Secrets, while many of its regional affiliates donate primarily to Republicans. AT&T Southeast, for example, operates in deeper-red regions, so it makes sense that this particular wing would donate more to the GOP.
Progressives who are up in arms about the Dobbs decision did not look at the situation with this sort of nuance. On Monday, Judd Legum compiled on his Substack a list of companies that pledged to fund abortion travel while simultaneously giving money to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). He focused on donations to RAGA in particular because attorneys general are the ones who give the orders to enforce trigger laws that can legally go into effect in the absence of Roe v. Wade.
Legum called the practices “hypocrisy” and reported that AT&T and T-Mobile gave $125,000 and $100,000, respectively, to RAGA in 2021. Also on the list were Comcast, which gave $216,000, as well as Uber, Mastercard, and JPMorgan, all of whom donated $25,000.
Legum is not the only prominent leftist who is attempting to browbeat corporations into cutting off donations to Republicans. Two days before the court released the Dobbs decision, Jane Sumner, a professor at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, who has written a book on how consumers can influence companies’ political behaviors, published a column in the Washington Post detailing how activists can pressure AT&T into altering its donation practices.
Another piece in Bloomberg, published Thursday, focused on AT&T and other companies such as Amazon and Disney that have pledged to fund abortion travel while giving to Republicans. Left-wingers are not shy in their participation in public-pressure campaigns against political opponents, and these companies will likely face their wrath.
Secular progressivism is a demanding religion whose adherents believe in its tenets staunchly. And they can see past these corporations’ public-relations attempts. AT&T and the rest, by their own doing, are in a precarious position. They have alienated a number of pro-life customers while failing to placate abortion proponents. We will see what this situation holds for their business prospects.
The multibillion-dollar China-competition legislative package is at a critical juncture this month: After more than a year of deliberations, the bill — which has had many names and is frequently called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) — is now with a bipartisan, bicameral conference committee charged with settling on a compromise text. Senate leadership wants to get it done by the summer.
For months, the administration and its congressional allies have hammered the message that this is an urgent, must-pass bill. It provides for $52 billion in semiconductor manufacturing subsidies, which Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and congressional leaders have said will determine the degree to which companies like Intel expand their operations in the U.S. In fact, Raimondo issued another statement reiterating the urgency of this bill earlier this week. For its part, Intel has said it may curtail its plans to open new chip-manufacturing sites in Ohio, depending on the outcome of the USICA legislative process.
Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly even organizing a political-pressure campaign in tandem with private industry. This week he told Axios, “If we don’t act quickly we could lose tens of thousands of good-paying jobs to Europe.”
Now, though, there are reports that Schumer may try to use the Senate’s remaining time ahead of the midterm elections to enact a trimmed-down version of the Build Back Better Act. That prompted the following threat from Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell:
Let me be perfectly clear: there will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing a partisan reconciliation bill.
Some progressive pundits, such as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, seem to be wishcasting, suggesting that McConnell’s threat to kill a Chinese-competitiveness bill to block legislation making prescription drugs cheaper will backfire.
Schumer is hammering that point, with his spokesman telling CNN that McConnell is holding the bill “hostage” to protect the pharmaceutical industry.
But Schumer should be viewed as the one hobbling USICA’s chances, by gumming up the Senate with a push to reanimate Build Back Better. As Allahpundit noted at Hot Air, citing me, McConnell seems to be banking on that perception:
I think Jimmy Quinn is right about what McConnell’s play here is. Schumer and Manchin are suddenly close to a deal on a scaled-down BBB bill that would reduce prescription drug costs for seniors, with Democrats hoping to pass the bill by the end of July. The House and Senate, meanwhile, have each already passed their own versions of USICA, a bill which the public broadly understands is necessary to shore up America’s supply chain. As Quinn says, McConnell is essentially daring Schumer and Biden to choose their economic bill over the Chinese-competition bill and then explain to voters why more domestic spending in an age of high inflation is of greater urgency than catching up to China in the important economic niche of semiconductor production.
Either Schumer truly believes that the USICA text under discussion is an urgent national-security priority, or he doesn’t.
As I reported recently, there’s a non-zero chance that Republicans may just decide to walk away in the end, given their political prospects. That possibility will grow if Build Back Better’s chances of becoming law also increase:
Interesting musing from a smart Hill aide:
Why should Republicans support USICA this summer when they could pass their own preferred version with likely GOP majorities next session?
Waiting a few months may result in a better, narrowly tailored bill devoid of the climate- and DEI-focused provisions with which House Democrats loaded it up. But, as Allahpundit concluded, that delay might, in turn, have ramifications for Intel’s plans in Ohio.
Right now Democrats are talking themselves into believing that they can mitigate the red wave of the midterms by focusing on abortion, gun control, and January 6.
One of their many problems is that Americans will regularly get fresh reminders about the other issues that are driving their irritation with the Biden administration — and not just every time they fill up their tank with gas or go shopping for groceries. Once a month, new Consumer Price Index numbers come out, reminding the country of just how high inflation is. Once a month, new U.S. Customs and Border Protection numbers come out, reminding Americans that hundreds of thousands of migrants are attempting to enter the country illegally each month.
And on July 28, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis will release the newest gross domestic product numbers. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow measure, which tracks economic data in real time and adjusts continuously, expects second-quarter output to contract by 1 percent. This week the BEA offered its adjusted numbers for the first quarter, finding the U.S. economy decreased at an annual rate of 1.6 percent last quarter, a little worse than the earlier assessment of 1.5 percent. Two consecutive quarters of decline is traditionally defined as a recession.
There is a good chance that on the morning of July 29, the headline will be, “U.S. NOW IN RECESSION.”
Are there voters out there who will be more concerned about abortion, gun control, and the events of January 6? Sure. But those voters will be dwarfed by the number of voters who are irate about runaway inflation, high gas prices, high food prices, difficulty finding infant formula, lingering supply-chain problems, shrinking 401(k)s and the market, dwindling savings, and on top of all that, an economic recession.
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to limit nicotine in cigarettes and ban Juul e-cigarettes. A court quickly stayed the Juul decision, so Juul products will remain on shelves for now. But both measures, if they were to take effect, would create incentives for black markets.
E-cigarettes such as those made by Juul are a safer alternative to tobacco, and an effective quitting aid for smokers. Mandating that tobacco cigarettes have a lower nicotine content would encourage smokers to smoke more to get the same nicotine effect — or to go underground to look for higher-nicotine cigarettes.
And, as if the FDA hadn’t done enough harm, now the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is getting in on the action.
And here the story of the Minitel, even though not a resounding failure, offers a great illustration of one of the problems with industrial policy. When thinking of the Minitel story, we are lucky to have a perfect product to compare it to: The iPhone. As Mercatus Center’s Dan Rothchild reminded me, the iPhone came out 15 years ago, and its evolution offers a sharp contrast with the Minitel. While the iPhone has changed and improved dramatically over the years, thanks to Apple investment and innovation, the Minitel pretty much stagnated. The difference couldn’t be more stark.
The Supreme Court yesterday denied an appeal from the California Trucking Association about AB5, the new employment law in California governing independent-contract work. That means the law goes into effect today, and the trucking industry in the most important state for supply chains will face major upheaval.
“It is going to be a radically new world in California’s trucking sector with the imposition of AB5, and it isn’t clear what parts of the industry — if any — are ready for it,” writes John Kingston at FreightWaves. The law was enjoined by a lower court on New Year’s Eve in 2019, preventing it from going into effect for the trucking industry. In April 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, overturned the injunction, allowing the law to apply to trucking, but it was still not in effect while the CTA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Now that the Supreme Court has denied the appeal, the law goes into effect today.
AB5 seeks to classify more independent contractors as employees under state labor laws. Most truck drivers are independent owner-operators who contract with trucking companies to make deliveries.
But AB5 makes it much harder for that arrangement to work. It imposes an “ABC test” to determine whether someone is an independent contractor. The “B” portion of that test, which says that an independent contractor must be someone who “performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business,” is the largest problem for truck drivers. Making deliveries is part of the usual course of a trucking company’s business, so it would be difficult to classify independent owner-operators as independent contractors.
The independent-contractor model is a major selling point for many truck drivers. They individually own their trucks and can choose to contract with whichever trucking company they would like. They have flexibility in setting their own schedules, and they’re small-business owners instead of large-business employees.
A piece from Truckinginfo describes the legal hoops that trucking companies will have to jump through to deal with AB5:
One option, of course, is using the same drivers as employees. “That’s presumably not very likely because most of those drivers want to be independent contractors,” [attorney Greg Feary] said. “They own their own trucks, they have their own businesses, and this really does throw a monkey wrench into their business model.”
Another option for motor carriers operating in California, he said, might be “to pivot to being a logistics company — a broker or freight forwarder — and using small motor carriers to deliver goods. The courts of California presumably would realize that property brokers are in a different trade/occupation/profession than a small carrier. You would hope that a California judge would understand that and recognize that.” . . .
“The only winners here will be the legal profession in my opinion,” [Western States Trucking Association leader Joe] Rajkovacz added, “as many motor carriers and brokers will need to ‘lawyer up,’ and frankly for the majority of small-business, they can’t afford the legal fees to try and defend themselves against a state determined to do the bidding of organized labor who believe they will financially benefit by increased membership.”
That last part is key: Unions are happy with AB5. Independent owner-operators aren’t unionized, and unions hope to be able to attract newly classified employees as members.
If the Biden administration gets its way, something similar to AB5 will be passed at the federal level. As Iain Murray wrote for Capital Matters last year, Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh (himself a former union president) supports more independent contractors being classified as employees. That would significantly decrease worker freedom and threaten the entire “gig economy” that has flourished over the past decade.
“Gasoline has been poured on the fire that is our ongoing supply chain crisis,” said the California Trucking Association in a statement after the Supreme Court declined to hear its case. California’s 70,000 independent owner-operators have seven days to restructure their entire business, it says.
The CTA’s argument was that AB5 violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A), which, despite its name, applies to trucking as well since it is a federally regulated industry. F4A prohibits states from passing laws or regulations that interfere with “rates, routes and services.” While a lower court bought the CTA’s argument and enjoined the law on those grounds, the Ninth Circuit did not.
The total impact of the law is still unclear. But the last thing trucking needed right now is more California regulations. Trucking companies will be preoccupied with satisfying the state’s legalism, and plenty of drivers could have their livelihoods upended. And though AB5-style regulations aren’t federal yet, California’s outsize presence in the logistics industry means the entire country will feel their effects.
Q : The war [in Ukraine] has pushed [oil] prices up. They could go as high as $200 a barrel, some analysts think. How long is it fair to expect American drivers and drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war?
THE PRESIDENT: As long as it takes, so Russia cannot, in fact, defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine. This is a critical, critical position for the world. Here we are. Why do we have NATO?
This is a terribly ineffective way to get the president off the hook for his policies that are generally hostile to oil companies and seek to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and an inadvertently effective way to get Americans to doubt the value of supporting Ukraine against Russia.
Two-thirds of Americans say recent increases in the price of gas are causing them hardship, which is up from 52 percent feeling this financial pinch in April. Although more Americans say they are experiencing “moderate” rather than “severe” hardship, the percentage describing the hardship as severe has risen from 14 percent to 22 percent.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to a dramatic shift in American public opinion: 70 percent of Americans now consider Russia an enemy of the United States, up from 41 percent in January. And on this topic, Democrats and Republicans largely agree, with 72 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans describing Russia as an enemy.
A new Pew Research Center survey, conducted March 21-27, finds that just 7 percent of U.S. adults have an overall favorable opinion of Russia.
But no one asked Americans whether they were willing to pay about $5 per gallon indefinitely as part of this conflict. (Note that U.S. gas prices did not reach these heights, even during conflicts in other oil-rich regions like Iraq!) Americans loathe Putin’s aggression and the Russian army’s barbaric brutality and war crimes.
“Macron says Russia can’t win in Ukraine after strike on mall.” Can’t win? The article begins,
France’s president denounced Russia’s fiery airstrike on a crowded shopping mall in Ukraine as a “new war crime” Tuesday and vowed the West’s support for Kyiv would not waver, saying Moscow “cannot and should not win” the war.
“Should not,” for sure.
Here is another paragraph from the article I have cited:
As condemnation came in from many quarters, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov struck a defiant note, saying Russia would press its offensive until it fulfills its goals. He said the hostilities could stop “before the end of the day” if Ukraine were to surrender and meet Russia’s demands, including recognizing its control over territory it has taken by force.
In recent days, Garry Kasparov has circulated the words of Thomas Mann, spoken to his fellow Germans from exile in 1941:
The resistance of England, the help it receives from America, are denounced by your leaders as “prolongation of the war.” They demand “peace.” They who drip with the blood of their own people and that of other peoples dare to utter this word. Peace — by that they mean subjugation, the legalization of their crimes, the acceptance of the humanly unendurable. But that is not possible. With a Hitler there can be no peace, because he is thoroughly incapable of peace, and because this word in his mouth is nothing but a dirty, pathological lie — like every other word which he ever gave or spoke.
Russian missile attacks on residential areas killed at least 19 people in a Ukrainian town near Odesa early Friday, authorities reported. . . .
Video of the pre-dawn attack showed the charred remains of buildings in the small town of Serhiivka, located about 50 kilometers (31 miles) southwest of Odesa. The Ukrainian president’s office said three X-22 missiles fired by Russian bombers struck an apartment building and two campsites. . . .
Ukraine’s Security Service said 19 people died, including two children. It said another 38, including six children and a pregnant woman, were hospitalized with injuries. Most of the victims were in the apartment building, Ukrainian emergency officials said.
Andriy Yermak, the chief of staff to President Zelensky, said, “A terrorist country is killing our people. In response to defeats on the battlefield, they fight civilians.” Well, they murder them, actually, but yes.
• “Don’t become desensitized to Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine.” That is the heading over a column by Dalibor Rohac, of the American Enterprise Institute. But desensitization has set in, for sure. In many people, I’m not sure there was ever sensitization in the first place.
• In mid-April, I published a post called “The Unspeakable.” It was about rape. A major part of the brutalization of Ukraine by Russian forces is rape. Two days ago, the New York Times published an article with the heading “After Rapes by Russian Soldiers, a Painful Quest for Justice.” Here it is, if you can bear it.
• Today, I have a column with an assortment of items, including this one:
Vladimir Kara-Murza has been imprisoned since April 11. He is a Russian journalist, politician, and democracy leader. He is also a friend of mine, and I wrote about him here. John McCain was a champion of Vladimir’s, and a friend. McCain asked Vladimir to serve as a pallbearer at his funeral, which he did. I wish Vladimir had a champion now. I mean, someone big, on an international stage. Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of the most admirable and bravest people I know. He ought to be a cause.
Maybe Mitt Romney could take it up? Maybe he could be Vladimir’s champion, in the absence of McCain?
The Russian parliament’s lower chamber, the State Duma, has approved a bill that would allow it to define any person who receives financial assistance from abroad as a “foreign agent,” a change making it easier for the state to target its domestic critics.
(1) The Russian dictatorship certainly needs no excuse to target its critics — with arrest, murder, or whatever. (2) Isn’t it interesting that dictatorships, almost everywhere, feel the need to have pretend parliaments that pass pretend laws? It is a form of flattery, I suppose — a compliment that dictatorship pays to democracy, somehow.
• In my observation, our Putinists, here in America and in the Free World more broadly, say two things. They say that Ukraine is a limp-wristed little liberal state, where the people do nothing but read Heather Has Two Mommies. And they say that Ukraine is “Nazi.” Maybe they could, you know — pick a lane?
• Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) has called for a U.S. withdrawal from NATO. Trump will pass from the scene. But Trumpism? It is here to stay, for it represents a strain in American politics, which is sometimes down, sometimes up, but always present.
• Pope Francis said, “Every day, I carry in my heart the dear and tormented Ukraine, which continues to be scourged by barbaric attacks, such as the one that struck the Kremenchuk shopping center.”
• War makes things urgent. Imminent death, or the possibility of it, makes things urgent. Here is an article by Hanna Arhirova of the Associated Press with an apt title: “Carpe diem: In Ukraine, war turning love into marriages.” The article opens as follows:
When the couple awoke to the rumble of war on Feb. 24, they’d been dating for just over a year. Russia was invading and Ihor Zakvatskyi knew there was no more time to lose.
He fished out the engagement ring he’d bought but, until then, not yet been ready to give to Kateryna Lytvynenko and proposed. If death do us part, he figured, then let it be as husband and wife.
“I did not want to waste a single minute without Katya knowing that I wanted to spend my life with her,” Zakvatskyi, 24, said as he and his 25-year-old bride exchanged vows and wedding rings this month in the capital, Kyiv.
A good reminder popped up in the Liturgy of the Hours this morning:
Never let evil talk pass your lips; say only the good things men need to hear, things that will really help them. Do nothing that will sadden the Holy Spirit with whom you were sealed against the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, all passion and anger, harsh words, slander, and malice of every kind. In place of these, be kind to one another, compassionate, and mutually forgiving, just as God has forgiven you in Christ.
Christians: “Do nothing that will sadden the Holy Spirit” is a good rule to live by. That includes on social media and in political discussions — and everything.