http://jamieglazov.com/2016/09/29/lejla-colak-video-what-my-experience-with-islam-tells-me-about-islamophobia/
You’re guilty and you don’t know it. Sure, you think you’re a decent person who treats people fairly, judging them on the content of their character and not the color of the skin. But let’s face it: You’re deluded. Especially if you happen to be white, you’re biased and you don’t even know it. You’re unaware of your own privilege, and of the extent to which your beliefs, speech, and even mannerisms oppress people of color. It’s time to confess. It’s time to be re-educated. It’s time to rid yourself of your false consciousness.
This is the message of the modern campus radical, of the diversity trainer, and, increasingly, of the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton.
Like many of the most dangerous progressive ideas, “implicit bias” or “unconscious racism” seems reasonable enough at first glance: Aren’t we all shaped by our environment and upbringing to make snap judgments about people? Aren’t those judgments often wrong? Couldn’t we all use exposure to different cultures and ideas to help us get past preconceived notions and casual bigotries? What could be wrong with that?
Indeed, in the debate Monday night, Clinton framed her discussion of “implicit bias” as a malady we all suffer from, telling Lester Holt: “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other.” Well, yes, too many people do jump to conclusions. So, what’s the solution, Hillary?
When it comes to policing, since it can have literally fatal consequences, I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers.
Wait. What? If we’re all biased, who’s training whom? Let’s be very clear: When it moves from abstract to concrete, all this talk about “implicit bias” gets very sinister, very quickly. It allows radicals to indict entire communities as bigoted, it relieves them of the obligation of actually proving their case, and it allows them to use virtually any negative event as a pretext for enforcing their ideological agenda.
Is this overblown? Well, let’s look at how Clinton has used “implicit bias” to deal with a specific incident: the shooting of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Okla.:
Hillary Clinton comments on #TerenceCruthcher on @SteveHarveyFM: “How many times do we have to see this in our country?” Full: pic.twitter.com/MdCbvHjHF5
— Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) September 20, 2016
This is extraordinarily irresponsible. How does Hillary possibly know that Crutcher’s shooting had anything at all to do with race? I don’t recall her being in Tulsa that night. There is no “we” about a police officer’s decision to pull the trigger. So why are we talking about collective guilt?
Ah, but that’s the magic of “implicit bias” and “unconscious racism.” Skepticism of its existence is proof of its existence, and you can just “know” that Crutcher or Philando Castile or Michael Brown or Keith Scott would be alive today if they had been white. In other words, the very existence of the incident proves the racism. The denials of racism prove the racism. And everyone who’s “keeping score” or “gets it” knows the real truth.
FBI Director James Comey returned to the Hill for a third time Wednesday to defend the integrity of the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email setup, and for a third time he encountered dubious Republicans who peppered him with questions to which he didn’t always have a satisfying answer.
Via Politico:
“You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels,” Comey declared Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. “We are honest people and … whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done.”
The normally stoic FBI chief grew emotional and emphatic as he rejected claims from Republican lawmakers that the FBI was essentially in the tank for Clinton when it recommended that neither she nor any of her aides be prosecuted in connection with the presence of classified information on Clinton’s private email server. He acknowledged he has “no patience” for such allegations.
“I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. We do not carry water for one side or the other. That’s hard for people to see because so much of our country, we see things through sides,” Comey said. “We are not on anybody’s side.”
Congressman Trey Gowdy was one of the Republicans trying to get some answers regarding the integrity of the FBI investigation.
He started off by dryly “acknowledging progress” in the Clinton email matter.
Referring to the House Judiciary Committee hearing, he quipped, “This morning we’ve had nine straight Democrats talk to the FBI about emails without asking for immunity.”
“You and I had a discussion last time about intent,” the South Carolina firebrand told Director Comey. “You and I see the statute differently. My opinion doesn’t matter — yours does, you’re the head of the bureau…but in my judgement, you read an element into the statute that does not appear on the face of the statute.”
The former prosecutor agreed that “intent” is often very hard to prove.
“Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, ‘I intend to commit this crime on this date. Go ahead and check the code section, I’m gonna do it,'” Gowdy pointed out.
He added, “That rarely happens so you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence.”
Republican senators sharply criticized FBI director James Comey Tuesday for his agency’s handling of recent terrorism incidents, including a bombing in New York and a shooting in an Orlando nightclub.
“Let’s just admit we’re not perfect and we made mistakes here,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on global terrorism. “Because if we don’t admit to mistakes we’re not going to get better.”
Paul said the FBI should make better use of existing tools instead of requesting more power. In addition, he suggested officials keep investigations open longer to prevent potential terrorists from slipping through the cracks after inquiries are closed — citing recent incidents as examples.
Comey defended the agency’s handling of both attacks and pledged transparency. But he did not concede to missing important details in either ca
“Sitting before you is a deeply flawed and fallible human being who believes deeply in admitting mistakes when they’re made,” Comey said.
In 2014, FBI officials investigated Ahmad Rahami — the 28-year-old accused of setting off bombs earlier this month in New York and New Jersey — but found no links to terrorism and subsequently dropped their case. The FBI also investigated and questioned Orlando gunman Omar Mateen several years prior to his June rampage.
Appearing with Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the landscape of terrorism has become less predictable and more dangerous since the 9/11 attacks in 2001. We have moved from a world of “terrorist-directed attacks” to one in which internet propaganda and self-radicalization take center stage, Johnson said.
Johnson pointed to recent bombings as examples of the “evolving” threat of homegrown extremism and the imperative of working more closely with community leaders.
The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation sparred repeatedly with Republican lawmakers Wednesday as they questioned the handling of the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was Secretary of State.
The FBI announced in July that investigators found extremely careless conduct in Mrs. Clinton’s handling of sensitive government information under the email arrangement, but also concluded that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought a case under the circumstances. Conservatives have been highly critical of the FBI for not pursuing the case more aggressively and for not recommending prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president.
That criticism has intensified in recent days when it was revealed that the Justice Department granted partial immunity to some witnesses, including Clinton aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, to get access to data or testimony.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, James Comey bristled at times when lawmakers suggested his agency gave Mrs. Clinton or her people a pass on conduct that would have merited charges for low-level government employees.
“We are not on anybody’s side. This was done exactly the way you would want it to be done,’’ Mr. Comey said. Partial and limited grants of immunity were given, he said, to get a laptop from a lawyer or testimony from a technology worker who otherwise refused to talk to investigators.
“You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels,’’ said Mr. Comey, who served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush.
FBI Director James Comey appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee. The big question is why—if he believes Hillary Clinton committed no prosecutable offense—he has given immunity deals to no fewer than five Clinton associates. A Journal editorial cites Beth Wilkinson, who represents Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, saying the immunity deals were designed to protect her clients against “classification” disputes. “This is an admission that both women knew their unsecure laptops had been holding sensitive information for more than a year,” adds the editorial board.
Donald Trump is right about the “stop and frisk” police tactic and on Monday night he was “unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts,” notes a separate editorial. NBC’s Lester Holt and Mrs. Clinton called the tactic unconstitutional. “They are wrong,” adds former prosecutor and New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani . “Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land,” based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio .
Speaking of Monday night’s debate, Jason Riley saw it as a clear Clinton victory and so did William Galston. But Holman Jenkins says the event helped clarify that this election “will resolve into very flawed outsider vs. very flawed insider—and will be decided by the American people in that vein.”
This column has long argued that the journalistic genre known as “fact checking” is a corruption of journalism. “The ‘fact check’ is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news,” we wrote in 2008. “The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment.”
Eight years later, we’d amend that slightly. “Fact checking” doesn’t pretend to be straight news exactly, but something more authoritative. The conceit of the “fact checker” is that he has some sort of heightened level of objectivity qualifying him to render verdicts in matters of public controversy.
Lately the “fact checkers” have been waging a campaign to portray Donald Trump as a contemporaneous supporter of the Iraq war, contrary to his assertions that he was an opponent. In Monday’s debate, Hillary Clinton pleaded for their help: “I hope the fact checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard. Donald supported the invasion of Iraq.” Moderator Lester Holt obliged, basing a question to Trump on the premise that the matter was settled: “You supported the war in Iraq before the invasion.”
Trump somewhat inarticulately rebutted the claim: “The record shows that I’m right. When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, the first time anybody’s asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows.”
What Trump actually said on Sept. 11, 2002, when Stern asked him if he favored an invasion, was: “Yeah, I guess so.” That was an affirmative statement, but a highly equivocal one. Is it fair or accurate to characterize it as sufficient to establish that Trump was a “supporter”? In our opinion, no. He might well have had second thoughts immediately after getting off the air with Stern.
He certainly had second thoughts in the ensuing months, and he came to oppose the invasion long before Mrs. Clinton did. Even FactCheck.org was unable to come up with any other Trump statement supportive of the decision to go to war. By December 2003, according to the site’s timeline, Trump was observing (in an interview with Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto) that “a lot of people” were “questioning the whole concept of going in, in the first place.” Five years later, according to PolitiFact.com, Trump was calling for President Bush’s impeachment because, as he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “he got us into the war with lies.” CONTINUE AT SITE
Two men wanted as witnesses in the New York bombing investigation after they removed a bag apparently left by the bomber have been identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to officials close to the case.
The two men work for EgyptAir and flew home shortly after the Sept. 17 bombing, officials said. Investigators are now trying to arrange an interview with the men in Egypt, the officials said.
The FBI considers the men witnesses, not suspects, in the investigation, and agents have been trying to identify and speak to the men for more than a week. Finding them had become a priority for investigators probing the detonation of a homemade bomb in the Manhattan neighborhood of Chelsea that injured 31 people.
After that explosion, passersby noticed another suspicious device four blocks away, and when police inspected it they discovered it was a pressure-cooker bomb very similar to the one that had exploded earlier.
Video from the neighborhood that night shows the bombing suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami, wheeling a duffel bag down the street, then leaving it on the sidewalk. A short time later, two men approach, open the bag, remove the homemade bomb wrapped in a garbage bag, and walk away with the bag. Officials say the two men may have inadvertently disarmed the bomb when they picked it up and removed it from the duffel bag.
The FBI has wanted to talk to the men to find out what they saw and heard that night, and, they hope, retrieve the bag and see if there is any additional physical evidence still on it. CONTINUE AT SITE
Climate change landed in a Washington, D.C., court this week as Republican governors and business groups sued to block President Barack Obama’s sweeping regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
The lawsuit is only the latest example of how polarized politics have made it so difficult to reconcile two divergent priorities: climate change and economic growth.
Across the country, however, voters are being offered a plan that does just that.
In November, Washington state will vote on the country’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. By embedding the cost of carbon dioxide emissions in the price consumers and businesses pay for energy, such a tax automatically encourages conservation and makes renewable energy more appealing, without regulations and subsidies that distort investment and undercut growth. Because the revenue is used to cut other taxes, it doesn’t crimp incomes or undermine business competitiveness.
ENLARGE
In environmentally conscientious Washington state, Initiative 732, as the ballot initiative is known, ought to be a slam-dunk. It isn’t—a poll shows voters roughly split. The reasons are a window into why climate policy is so polarizing.
The resistance comes not just from the usual opponents on the right, but even more strikingly from the left. The reason: Many environmentalists see climate change as an opportunity to remake the economic order. They want to use carbon taxes to fund renewable energy and green technology and bolster the incomes of workers and communities they say are most hurt by climate change. Whatever the merits of these goals, the effect is to equate climate policy with bigger government, which makes it harder to achieve broad-based support.
Nearly a century ago the British economist Arthur Pigou advanced the idea of stamping out socially destructive activity by taxing it.
Washington state’s proposed levy is a textbook “Pigouvian tax” which should come as no surprise since it’s the brainchild of an economist: Yoram Bauman, who previously taught economics at the University of Washington. He now makes his living doing stand-up comedy about economics (One liner: “You might be an economist if you refuse to sell your children because they’ll be worth more later.”).
Democratic Governor Jay Inslee had proposed a cap-and-trade plan modeled on California’s, but couldn’t get it passed through either the Democratic-controlled state House or the Republican-controlled Senate.
So Mr. Bauman’s group, Carbon Washington, put forth I-732 as an alternative. It would impose a $15 tax per ton of carbon dioxide in the first year, rising to $25 in the second, and thereafter by 3.5% after inflation annually to $100 in current dollars.
The tax would add 25 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline and boost the average monthly electric bill by about $8. All the revenue—roughly $2 billion a year—would be returned to taxpayers via a one-percentage point cut in the state sales tax, elimination of a business tax, and a tax rebate of up to $1,500 a year to 460,000 low-income workers.
The Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based environmental think tank, reckons the tax is just high enough to achieve the state’s statutory emissions reduction goal: 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
I-732 is modeled on a similar levy introduced in British Columbia in 2008 that now stands at $23 per metric ton. A study by Werner Antweiler and Sumeet Gulati at the University of British Columbia found the tax has curbed the average person’s fuel consumption by 7% and boosted the average car’s fuel efficiency by 4%.
Given all that, why don’t more environmentalists support it? In part, internal politics: Some groups are miffed they didn’t have more say in the design of I-732. Others think I-732 won’t pass and their energy is better devoted to politically more viable initiatives. Having failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation, Mr. Inslee has, like Mr. Obama, since moved to cap some emissions via regulation.
But the main reason is that I-732 sends its revenue back to taxpayers, whereas environmentalists would like the revenue for other priorities. The Washington Environmental Council, which doesn’t support I-732, says revenue from any climate initiative should be plowed into the “clean energy economy…infrastructure for clean, abundant water and healthy forests” and assistance for “the most vulnerable workers and communities.”
Rather than compromise, other climate activists have sought to oust their political opponents—usually Republicans. CONTINUE AT SITE
Hamilton, in addition to being an award-winning Broadway phenomenon, is notoriously bipartisan show.
“I feel like this really crosses political lines,” Lin-Manuel Miranda told me a year ago. “Dick Cheney and his wife came to the show and said wonderful things about it. I had a wonderful talk with Laura Bush and [a] Bush daughter about the show. Peggy Noonan has seen it. The reminder that our Founders were human is something that everyone can get behind regardless of our political affiliations.”
Yet that wasn’t the case last Saturday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in New York to attend the UN General Assembly, went to see the show.
When he took his seat, accompanied by Secret Service guards and allegedly Mossad, Netanyahu was booed and heckled over Palestine as well as being loudly cheered.http://heatst.com/entertainment/benjamin-netanyahu-booed-at-hamilton-performance/?mod=hsnewsletter_dd
