Former Obama adviser @davidaxelrod says that a court decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot “would rip the country apart”
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) December 30, 2023
Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/YVLFcfD8qX
Saturday, December 30, 2023
Please Don't Do This
Thursday, December 28, 2023
Far Beyond Civil War Denial
The former South Carolina governor then asked the voter who had asked her about the Civil War what he thought the cause was, to which the voter responded, “I’m not running for president.”
“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley added. “I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people,” she added.
The voter criticized her for not mentioning slavery in her answer. “In the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery,” the voter said.
“What do you want me to say about slavery?” Haley asked.
One may be moved to say "whatever it is you actually believe." But she did say something significant, and it was worse: On a local New Hampshire radio show Thursday morning, Haley told host Jack Heath
I mean, of course the Civil War was about slavery. But what’s the lesson in all of that? That we need to make sure that every person has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way. That was the goal of what that was at. Yes, I know it was about slavery. I’m from the South, of course I know it’s about slavery.
So she knows it was about slavery, with the lesson "that we need to make sure that every person has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way."
The Civil war was not about freedom of speech or of religion unless Haley is equating the right to hold slaves with the First Amendment. More relevantly, the candidate stressed the "freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone in government getting in the way."
If the media and politicians can surmount the controversy over the cause of the Civil War, they might notice that Haley was arguing that the war was fought over an individual's desire to act "without anyone in government getting in the way."
Ironically, Haley is right. In an important sense, the Civil War was fought over the privilege of behaving as the slaveholder wished without government getting in the way. Cotton and tobacco were king in the south and profits for plantation owners would be enhanced if workers were slaves and not employees paid a wage. Southern states believed the federal government was going to block expansion of slavery into new states and eventually abolish it. That would be the federal government denying "every person" the "freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way."
Southern states were determined not to let northerners and their government curb their freedom to do as they wish. At that time, the freedom was to own other human beings but, as Haley is well aware, that freedom now is less odious and far more subtle. The "freedom" touted by the candidate includes limiting federal employees to five years at their job which, as David Corn recognizes
would seem to cover TSA officials, federal law enforcement officials, intelligence analysts, food and drug safety officials, National Institues of Health research supervisors, counterterrorism experts, counterintelligence officers, workplace safety regulators, financial regulators, public health officials, border security officials, IRS tax collectors, trade officials, climate change negotiators, and you can fill in the rest.
Of course, someone would run the federal government, which very likely would be lobbyists and the interests, especially powerful corporations, which employ them. That would be consistent with Haley's enthusiasm for increasing oil and gas drilling, cutting income taxes for the wealthy and others, and undermining- uh, er, "reforming"- Social Security and Medicare.
Nikki Haley's remark about slavery on Wednesday evening was no accident. It may have been a nod and a wink to her corporate donors or it may have reflected sincere views (presuming she has any) about the role of government in society. Either way, she pointed to the likely role of any Haley Administration in shunning the interests of all but the most powerful Americans.
Tuesday, December 26, 2023
Reality, Acknowledged
Certainly, there were more slaves in the colonies and the USA than taken by the Barbary pirates because the women who became slaves here begat more children, as did their female children. However, as Sowell presumably was maintaining, there appears to have been more white Europeans taken as slaves by North African scoundrels than black Africans taken by whites and sold into slavery in what has been referred to as "America's original sin."
We learn from a book, described here by an Ohio journalist, that retired Ohio State University history professor Robert Davis
devised a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
According to Henry Louis Gates, there were only about 388,000 black persons "shipped directly to North America." That would be roughly 388,000 too many. Though some individuals were taken because of race, others became victims on the basis of ethnicity or religion as
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
According to Davis, the slaves in north Africa generally were treated as badly as slaves in the Americas and “slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”
The plight of those unlucky Europeans is rarely taught and often completely ignored. That doesn't suggest that black, or African-American, history should not be part of curricula in secondary schools and colleges across the nation. We could continue in sort of a Balkanization of western history, with the contributions and persecution of blacks, Latinos, and Asians taught, each as a unit. Or instead, we could try something radical: teaching the past completely, fully, and objectively, neither demonizing the West (as is increasingly common) nor ignoring the impact of all ethnic groups. We could call it "history."
Yet, there is another moral to the research of Davis and the (valid) insistence of Sowell that not all evil has been perpetrated by Westerners and/or whites. Note that
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers (and) between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
The book is called Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800. Had it been written 19-20 years later, "Christian" and "Muslim" likely would have been excised by the publisher. Acknowledgment of the effect of religion has been all but cancelled.
Viewing the full scope of the history of oppression, we should recognize that the problem is not one of Israel vs. Palestine or Israelis vs. Palestinians. It is not primarily ethnic, especially given that Hamas' greatest support is not from the Arab world, but from Persian Iran. Nor is it racial, especially as the racial difference between Arabs born and raised in the land of Palestine is not dramatically different than that of Jews born and raised in the land of Palestine.
Rather, this war and the ongoing unrest in the region is primarily a matter of religion. Israel, in past years often referred to as "the Jewish state of Israel," was established as a haven from oppression for Jews. And although non-Jews enjoy more rights there than do the residents of nearly all (if not all) Arab and Persian nations, it is nevertheless advantageous in Israel to be Jewish.
Muslims vs. Jews? You don't hear that in the media, traditional or social, in this country and probably not elsewhere. The issues in this conflict and beyond thus get muddled. It becomes less so when we are reminded by the likes of Thomas Sowell that slavery has existed for several hundreds of years and in numerous continents. It becomes clearer still when we admit that Muslim masters have existed and can be as evil as Christian ones.
Sunday, December 24, 2023
Yet to All Celebrants, a Merry Christmas
In the matter of political ideology, some leaders, political
or religious, are principled and others blow with the wind.
Four days after the brutal terrorist attack by Hamas upon Israeli citizens
Pope Francis, in his strongest comments since the start of the conflict in Gaza, on Wednesday called for the release of all hostages taken by Hamas militants and said Israel has a right to defend itself.
Speaking in a somber voice at the end of his weekly general audience to thousands of people in St. Peter's Square, he also expressed grave concern over Israel's siege imposed on Gaza.
"I continue to follow, with pain and apprehension, what is happening in Israel and Palestine. So many people killed, and others wounded. I pray for those families who saw a feast day turn into a day of mourning, and I ask that the hostages be immediately released," he said.
Twenty-two days later, the pontiff again called for the release of the hostages held by Hamas when he
called for a cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hamas and renewed an appeal for the release of hostages held by the Palestinian militant group in Gaza.
"Let no-one abandon the possibility of stopping the weapons," he said at his weekly blessing in St. Peter's Square.
"Cease-fire," he said, mentioning a recent television appeal by Father Ibrahim Faltas, one of the Vatican's representatives in the Holy Land.
He then added in his own words: "We say 'cease-fire, cease-fire.' Brothers and sisters, stop! War is always a defeat, always."
Referring to "the grave situation in Palestine and Israel," he said "in Gaza, in particular, let there be room to guarantee humanitarian aid and may the hostages be freed immediately," he said, speaking about Israeli hostages seized by Hamas on Oct. 7.
So far, so good. However, the tide has turned; public sentiment has shifted dramatically toward Hamas, as- probably not coincidentally- has someone else's. On November 24, the Hindustan Times reported
The pope met with Jewish families whose relatives were kidnapped by Hamas, and Palestinians whose families were still in Gaza. He said to a crowd in St. Peter’s Square that he saw the suffering of both sides, saying, “This is what wars do. But here we have gone beyond wars. This is not war. This is terrorism.”
However, the Vatican denied that the pope used the word “genocide” to describe the situation, as some Palestinians who met with him claimed.
Actually, the Vatican did not deny it because as the news outlet itself noted, "Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said, 'I am not aware that he used such a word.'”
That's not a denial. A denial would be more like "The pontiff said no such thing" or "that report is inaccurate." Mr. Bruni seems to be admitting that he does not have first-hand knowledge and it's very possible that he had not been told what Pope Francis said. In fact, though a refusal to respond to the accusation would be less forthcoming, it would not as obviously suggested that the Pope had said such a thing.
A couple of pro-Israel organizations were displeased but rather diplomatic. The American Jewish Committee
said in a statement on X (Formerly Twitter) that it appreciated the pope’s meeting with the hostage families but added, “Later in the day, he described the Israel-Hamas war as ‘beyond war,’ as ‘terrorism.’ Hamas’ butchering and kidnapping of civilians is terrorism. Israel’s self-defense is not. Vatican, please clarify.”
The Council of the Assembly of Italian Rabbis seemed to accuse the pope of “publicly accusing both sides of terrorism.”
It said some “Church leaders” did not condemn the Hamas attack and said they were “putting the aggressor and the attacked on the same plane in the name of a supposed impartiality.”
On the same plane? If only. Pope Francis instead had stated "This is what wars do. But here we have gone beyond wars. This is not war. This is terrorism." He wasn't referring to terrorism by both sides; he was contending that Israel alone was committing terrorism.
But at this moment, it is Christmas Eve and it's time to be positive. Early in the war, while opponents of Hamas were largely merely expressing outrage over the brutal, homicidal attack, a US Representative from the Bronx took opponents of Israel head-on:
The notion that Israel is committing genocide or ethnic cleansing is a blood libel.
— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorres) November 3, 2023
It is a dangerous lie intended to incite hatred for Israel as a Jewish State.
The kind of hatred that has driven extremists to celebrate, call for, or commit violence against Jews.
Falsely…
This was only about four weeks after the incident. However, Torres is still on-target and bold:
I had a simple message for the ‘Free Palestine’ protestors who heckled me at the 92nd Street Y.
— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorres) December 22, 2023
We are going to Free Palestine—FROM HAMAS.
Hamas is the greatest oppressor of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.
You can either be pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas but you… pic.twitter.com/ShQC8k8TAr
Merry Christmas to the brave Ritchie Torres. And may everyone who celebrates the holiday have a merry Christmas. That goes for believers as well as to atheists and agnostics, the latter evidently including a certain important figure in Vatican City.
Friday, December 22, 2023
All May Not Be Lost
Chris Hayes, with the most eloquent rebuttal to the Israel Defense Forces indiscriminate killing of civilians — including journalists, hostages and innocent Palestinian men, women and children — I have heard by any cable news host.pic.twitter.com/Qnjz1DR9iE
— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) December 20, 2023
The security force, initially, might be composed primarily of Palestinians who aren’t affiliated with Hamas and are willing to cooperate with the Israeli troops still ringing the border. Ideally, this policing force would be bolstered by foreign troops, operating under a U.N. mandate. In the chaos of postwar Gaza, there will be a need for disciplined, experienced troops whose rules of engagement allow them to use military power if needed.
Israel’s initial insistence that it would eliminate Hamas probably is at an inflection point, too. After more than 70 days of hard fighting, Israel estimates that it has killed about 8,500 Hamas fighters. That’s out of an initial force the CIA estimated at 20,000 to 25,000. Whatever the precise numbers, a battered Hamas will likely survive, perhaps in hiding.
If there is eventually to be a Palestinian state, influential Arab countries in the region must step up and assume some responsibility for a just outcome. Ignatius continues
Over the longer term, when “the day after” finally arrives, U.S. and Israeli officials are both hoping that Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, can play a key role — providing money, leadership and legitimacy for the Gaza reconstruction effort.
Both countries have reasons to help midwife a reborn Gaza: Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, often known as MBS, has been seeking an opportunity to show visionary leadership in the Arab world. Normalizing relations with Israel and, at the same time, championing a well-governed Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank would be visionary, indeed. One official hopes MBS will add Gaza to his Vision 2030 agenda.
The UAE would bring special skills to the table, as well. As the earliest Arab country to embrace the Abraham Accords, it’s trusted by Israelis. UAE companies such as Emaar have experience managing vast the construction projects that Gaza will require. And the UAE for more than 10 years has sheltered Muhammad Dahlan, a Palestinian wheeler-dealer who was the dominant political power in Gaza until the PA was displaced by Hamas in 2006.
Or powerful nations such as the USA can throw up their hands and leave the region to sadistic, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists such as Islamic Jihad or Hamas. Israel probably eventually would be destroyed but strife in the region would continue with Palestinian Arabs forever without a homeland.
Wednesday, December 20, 2023
Blood of Our Ancestors
You know, when they let, I think the real number is like 15,
16 million people into our country, when they do that, we got a lot of work to
do. They’re poisoning the blood of our
country. That’s what they’ve done. They’ve poisoned ... mental institutions and
prisons all over the world. Not just in South America. Not just in the three or
four countries that we think about, but all over the world they’re coming into
our country. From Africa, from Asia, all over the world. They’re pouring into
our country. Nobody’s even looking at them. They just come in. The crime is
going to be tremendous.
Not sure how these people sleep at night https://t.co/JNEoCV46X7
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) December 19, 2023
Trump contends there are "like 15, 16 million people into our country, when they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country." Representative Malliotakis said "He didn't say the word 'immigrants.' I think he was talking about the Democratic policies."
Unless the ex-President meant that there are approximately 14 or 16 million Democrats "pouring into our country "from Africa, from Asia, all over the world," he was talking about immigrants.
Nonetheless, I'd ask a different question than would Hasan. We have to accept the possibility that these folks sleep well at night, either because they lack a conscience or because they actually agree with Mr. Trump. Perhaps the better question, asked rhetorically or not, would beg an explanation as to the reason such Republicans are unable or unwilling to defend the remarks they prefer to pretend the former President did not make.
They would not have to defend the racial aspect- "blood"- of the comment. If they want to restrict dramatically the flow of migrants to the USA, they could make the argument. But they won't. Karen Finney, of whom I'm no fan, has an interesting theory which might explain their reticence when in response to Hasan, she maintains "Trump's comments are as much about interracial/bi-racial Americans as they are about immigrants. The 'poisoning the blood' rhetoric akin to 'one drop' laws in the US. This is about a much bigger version of who is American."
Technically, she is wrong, but only technically. Trump was talking about immigrants, and only immigrants and reflects the perspective of many voters. While his words and meaning are hateful and bigoted, they make sense to a lot of people.
Nonetheless (as Finney recognizes), when Trump speaks of "blood," he is not speaking of the "blood" of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or Americans of Latin descent. Were he doing so, there would be no "blood" to be poisoned- it already be "poisoned," the result of sexual relations among people of different national and racial backgrounds.
Thus, when Donald Trump was speaking of "the blood of our country," he was referring to the blood of white Americans. Finney's critique is insightful insofar as she was foreseeing a slippery slop, unconsciously harkening back to Reverend Martin Niemoller. The Lutheran minister, at first a right-winger, then a critic of Adolph Hitler, after the Second World War eloquently powerfully admitted
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Actor Ronald Reagan was a fake and bad President with
soaring rhetoric. So he understood what even Republicans once did, that "you can go to live in
France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or
Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But
anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American." Here, it has been not who our parents or grandparents were, but who we are, or striving to become.
But Donald Trump's acolytes, including supposed rivals Ramaswamy, DeSantis, and Haley, are in too deep. Intimidated by, or in support of, the Republican Party's leading presidential candidate, they are unable to make an argument in favor of democratic principles, institutional mores, or American values. Their silence speaks loudly. Commitment to what has made America America has given way to accepting someone who wants to decide who gets to stay and who gets shut out based upon the supposed blood of their ancestors.
Monday, December 18, 2023
The Republican Candidate Silently Approving of Racism
However, Christie went a little further, both in questioning Haley's motives and in making a further case against the leading GOP contender. He charged
Saturday, December 16, 2023
GOP Profiles in Cowardice
What a coward & phony. @tedcruz may be the most unTexan-like Texas elected official. Weaselly and weak, skulking away when his false bravado is challenged even a little bit. https://t.co/vVY2buZ28s
— Matt Angle (@LSPmatt) December 15, 2023
Christie said it’s “not pro-life to prevent a woman from ending a pregnancy which is doomed to end in death of her child and may risk her own health.” He emphasized that he would not enact a federal abortion ban and would instead leave it to voters in the states.
It's difficult to make the failed former governor of New Jersey appear bold but we live in an age in which the leading advocate for democracy among politicians is- wait for it- the daughter of Dick Cheney.
Of course, Christie is wrong about leaving reproductive freedom up to the states. Legislation is needed to codify Roe v. Wade or to establish a national right to terminate pregnancy through the first two trimesters without exception. Nonetheless, he was right to call out Haley.
But Democrats had a responsibility to their voters and to the country to respond aggressively on this situation. In the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, the right to choose is popular among the American people, who have a compassionate side. Even heartless Haley invoked the need to be compassionate while nonetheless refusing to defend a pregnant woman whose health was endangered by continuation of an unwanted pregnancy.
Less cowardly than unimaginative was President Biden, who should have sent Air Force One to Texas to pick up Katie Cox and fly her to state in which she could have safely procured an abortion without controversy. That simultaneously would have put the Administration on the side of reproductive freedom, women, compassion, and strength of conviction.
It would have elevated a winning issue for Democrats and, if they were lucky, Republicans would have engaged on the issue and raised the stakes. Instead, individuals such as Ted Cruz can avoid the issue entirely while opportunists such as presidential candidate Nikki Haley can grandstand as "compassionate conservatives" while cruelly denying agency to women.
Thursday, December 14, 2023
Mayor Apologizes (Sort of) for Actually Being Inclusive
In what she called an "honest mistake," Boston's mayor apologized this week after an email inviting elected officials of color to a holiday event was accidentally sent to every council member, according to multiple media reports.
Mayor Michelle Wu, the city's first Asian American mayor,
said the mistake was made when her aide, Denise DosSantos, sent the email to
all officials instead of a select few.
It was indeed an honest mistake for the Democratic mayor, a daughter of immigrants from Taiwan, to suggest initially that council members would be welcome regardless of race, creed, or national origin. And so
"Honorable members: On behalf of Mayor Michelle Wu, I cordially invite you and a guest to the Electeds of Color Holiday Party," read the email, which was obtained by the Boston Herald.
The event for "electeds of color" reportedly took place Wednesday at the Parkman House.....
In a statement to WCVB-TV, the mayor explained the error. "I think we've all been in a position at one point where an email went out, and there was a mistake in the recipient."
Perhaps when her aide sent out the email, she forgot to add "whites need not apply." Responding to criticism
Wu added it was custom for “diverse” members of council to take turns hosting the annual party, which has taken place for years.
“I’ve been a part of a group that gathers, representing elected officials of color across all different levels of government in Massachusetts,” Wu told the outlet. “A group that has been in place for more than a decade, and the opportunity to create a space for people to celebrate and rotate who hosts.”
Holiday gatherings for all elected officials are also planned, Wu said, adding she “looked forward to celebrating with everyone at the holiday parties that we have besides this one, as well.”
It's a safe bet that none of the gatherings will be advertised for "elected white officials" (who comprise 7 of the 13 members) or "elected officials of whiteness." That's a good thing- which, in the world of Michelle Wu, cannot be assumed to be widely understood.
Following the Brown v. Board of Education decision of the US Supreme Court, "White Citizens' Councils" sprung up throughout the southeastern USA. Spoiler alert: they were not established to facilitate integration nor to eradicate discrimination. On a positive note, there is no record of leaders arguing their cause was legitimate because of the existence of other groups such as the NAACP.
One black city councilor, Brian Worrell, told the Boston Herald "We make space and spaces for all kinds of specific groups in the city and city government. This is no different, and the Elected Officials of Color has been around for more than a decade."
In its 3+ iterations, the Ku Klux Klan has been around for well over a century. The KKK is evil, of course- but that's the point. Having survived does not necessarily lend legitimacy to a group. The Elected Officials of Color presumably has a right to exist and to assemble peacefully, though "White Elected Officials" would prove to be far more than controversial.
Nonetheless, the invitation was extended by the chief executive of a city, an individual elected to represent everyone no matter the constituent's race, color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. It was an invitation to a segregated event, in which no whites need apply.
We thought- or at least hoped- that we had put the days of racial discrimination behind us. However, bigotry and resultant discrimination have grown along with the adoption of the principles and policies of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It turns out that "inclusion" means inclusion for our group, not for yours. The damage to the country, and to the party of Mayor Wu, beckons.
Clear, Present, and Ignored Danger
Ford was asked about the 1975 Helsinki Accords, an attempt to improve relations between the Communist Eastern Bloc and the Western democracies that was unpopular with many Americans of Eastern European descent.
What Ford meant to say: We don’t officially accept or
diplomatically recognize Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
What Ford actually said: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under the Ford administration.’’
Evidently, the awkward, but tactically useful, term "misspoke" was not yet in vogue because
The questioner, Max Frankel of The New York Times, appeared unable to believe his ears. He gave Ford a chance to reverse himself: "Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence?"
Ford dug in deeper. "I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union."
Oh, dear. By the time the news sunk into voters' consciousness the next day, it was clear that Mr. Ford had made a terrible mistake. It was a time before so much information and misinformation was available on social media and one major gaffe could have a determining impact on an election.
In September of 1974, President Ford had made the decision, a major error both in policy and politics, to pardon former President Richard Nixon. Then debating Jimmy Carter, he liberated Poland prematurely and further sowed the seeds of his defeat in November of 1976..
President Biden is particularly prone to similar unforced errors, such as when
visiting a wind tower producer in Colorado on November 29, Biden appeared to confuse Chinese President Xi Jinping with Xiaoping, who ruled the country between 1978 and 1989.
He said: "I've said this to Deng Xiaoping in the Himalayas, and I've said this to every world leader: It's never, never, never been a good bet to bet against the American people." According to The South China Morning Post, the White House transcript was later edited to Xi Jinping, but this didn't stop the original footage being widely shared on Chinese social media.
No one cares about what the President calls the prime Butcher of Beijing or with whom Joe Biden confuses him. However, at an event at the White House on December 11 celebrating Chanukah
Addressing attendees Biden said: "But we know this year's Hanukkah's different. It's been 65 years since the deadliest day of the Jewish people since the Holocaust. 65 years." Biden appeared to be trying to say it was 65 days since the attack, which would have been accurate.
The president went on to make clear he had been referring to Hamas' mass assault on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people and saw another 240 taken to Gaza as hostages. He continued: "After October 7, my father, a father, returned to his kibbutz to salvage what was left of his home. What was left was rubble and ruin."
"After October 7th, my father returned to his Kibbutz to salvage what he could...."
— Lowkey (@Lowkey0nline) December 13, 2023
Joe Biden's father died 20 years ago.pic.twitter.com/Wav2VqXXF8
Joe Biden's father has been deceased for over twenty years. And mistaking 65 days for 65 years- twice- is the kind of material late-night comedians would kill for.
Joe Biden's re-election prospects are not only imperiled, but are gradually becoming a longshot. However,
Michael Dukakis, a qualified and decent individual (already a problem there) was harmed by the silly photo of him riding around in a tank during the 1988 presidential campaign. When minor, superficial incidents occur during debate, they may have an even greater effect on elections. Gerald Ford inexplicably denying Soviet domination of Eastern Europe; incumbent President George HW Bush "glancing impatiently at his watch" in 1992; the sighs, interpreted as "petulant," of Al Gore in 2000; Richard Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow in 1960.
The same fate may befall President Biden. Nonetheless, a clearly pleased veteran Democratic strategist, Karen Finney, has remarked “When you had people who were trying to test the
waters” for a presidential bid, “the party rose up and made it clear to those
individuals — who were mostly white men — that to disrespect the vice president
would not be well received by women and people of color within the party. They got a little bit of a
smack in the face.”
That was not only a statement- it was also a warning. Joe Biden
is liable to say something absurd, as he did a few days ago, and be forever ridiculed by
Republican politicians, comedians, pundits, social media “influencers,” even legitimate
journalists, and lose the next presidential election decisively. But not to
worry: at least “women and people of color within the party” will have the
satisfaction of knowing they were not disrespected en route to Donald Trump
becoming the 47th President of the United States of America.
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Speech, Not Violence
For those who see Elise Stefanik as sympathetic to Jews, remember she avidly supports the guy who dined with this murderous Nazi, and said not one word of disapproval or protest. https://t.co/2LiJfiuEft
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) December 12, 2023
In May of 2022, Annie Karni of The New York Times wrote
Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump White House official who
now hosts an influential podcast on the right, said Ms. Stefanik could not care
less about criticism from the left, using an expletive for emphasis.
What keeps her up at night, Mr. Bannon said, is any threat from the right.
“She’s in a competition right now with Representative Jim Banks about who is going farther right,” he said, referring to the Indiana Republican and chairman of the Republican Study Committee, who has also refashioned himself from a movement conservative into a Trump acolyte as he seeks to rise in power in Washington.
Some of Ms. Stefanik’s recent moves, people close to her said, appeared to be motivated by her internal competition with Mr. Banks.
Attacking top leaders of prominent institutions of higher learning can only ingratiate Stefanik with the hard right she has been courting, as well as with the disgraced ex-President whom she prays selects her as a running mate.
Yet the cause of ending- or of even examining- the culture and circumstances on college campuses which have led to the toleration of anti-Semitism which appeared to enervate Stefanski was not well served by her performance in committee.
In July of 2017, in response to a movement which has only grown since, social psychologist Jonathan Rauch and FIRE president and CEO Greg Lukianoff noted
Aggressive and even violent protests have erupted at some of
the country’s most progressive schools, such as Berkeley, Middlebury College,
and Evergreen State College. Are these schools brutal and toxic environments
for members of various identity groups? Or has a set of new ideas on campus
taught students to see oppression and violence wherever they look? If students
are repeatedly told that numerical disparities are proof of systemic
discrimination, and a clumsy or insensitive question is an act of aggression (a
“microaggression”), and words are sometimes acts of violence that will shorten
your life, then it begins to make sense that they would worry about their
safety, chronically, even within some of America’s most welcoming and
protective institutions.
One of the ideas which concerned Rauch and Lukianoff may have been, presumably inadvertently, promoted by Stefanik's condemnation of calls on campuses for "genocide" which have never been specifically made. They note
Of all the ideas percolating on college campuses these days, the most dangerous one might be that speech is sometimes violence. We’re not talking about verbal threats of violence, which are used to coerce and intimidate, and which are illegal and not protected by the First Amendment. We’re talking about speech that is deemed by members of an identity group to be critical of the group, or speech that is otherwise upsetting to members of the group. This is the kind of speech that many students today refer to as a form of violence.
They explain that "the idea that speech is violence is so dangerous" because
It tells the members of a generation already beset by anxiety and depression that the world is a far more violent and threatening place than it really is. It tells them that words, ideas, and speakers can literally kill them. Even worse: At a time of rapidly rising political polarization in America, it helps a small subset of that generation justify political violence.
Stefanik might have assisted the consideration of speech codes had she been intellectually honest. Rather than condemning calls for genocide- which have largely, if not completely, been absent- she could have invoked the danger inherent in the common chant of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," a call for the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel.
But she did not. Similarly, in covering the testimony of the three college presidents, the media has obsessed over how badly the college presidents did at what the news media implicitly views as a performance, a failed one. Instead, newspersons should have focused on the controversial and debatable issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion and especially upon the harmful impulse of equating speech with violence. It turns out that neither they nor Representative Elise Stefanik was interested in shedding light on a very important topic.
It Was the Candidate
The verdict is in. Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump and the reason is.... There's no silver medal. You win or lose, and failing to ob...
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
Since the Obama Administration, a few voices on the right lamented the apparent erosion of the concept of the USA as a nation of laws a...