Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

Brazil’s Trumpian Candidate Jair Bolsonaro is polling well because the educated dread a return of the left. By Mary Anastasia O’Grady

https://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-trumpian-candidate-1538329424?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=4&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

Donald Trump’s candidacy was “the empty gin bottle” that voters had “chosen to toss through the window,” David Gelernter wrote in an October 2016 Wall Street Journal op-ed. As Brazilians go to the polls Oct. 7 to elect a new president, they’re tossing their own empty bottle, perhaps one that once held the potent sugar distillate called cachaça.

The Trumplike candidate is Jair Bolsonaro of the Social Liberal Party, a 63-year-old, thrice-married former army captain. Although he has been in Brazil’s Congress since 1990 he is widely viewed as an outsider and wears his political incorrectness as a badge of honor. He’s also leading in the polls, much to the consternation of “experts” in places like New York and London.

Mr. Gelernter’s America was more than simply frustrated with an anemic economy. President Obama and Hillary Clinton had “emasculated” voters, he wrote. Their rebellion was against progressive snobs who belittled conservatives and their traditional values.

Yet the Trump base alone couldn’t have elected the president. It took voters like Mr. Gelernter, whose profile as a professor of computer science at Yale puts him squarely in the category of the “elite,” to produce the unforeseen victory. Confessing no admiration for the real-estate developer, Mr. Gelernter said he would vote for him “grimly.” Why? Because the alternative was too awful to contemplate.

With 28% support, according to a Datafolha poll released Friday, a Bolsonaro victory is far from certain. Electoral rules require a candidate to earn 50% plus one of valid votes cast to win in the first round. If necessary, a runoff election will be held Oct. 28.

Feinstein’s ‘Temperament’ Gambit Democrats lobby the ABA to reopen its Kavanaugh evaluation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/feinsteins-temperament-gambit-1538337954

The intervention by American Bar Association President and Hillary Clinton supporter Robert Carlson against Brett Kavanaugh turns out to be even worse than we reported on Saturday. Now, exploiting the latest delay in a Senate confirmation vote, Democrats and liberals like Mr. Carlson are pressuring the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to reopen its evaluation of Brett Kavanaugh.

The ABA committee submitted its evaluation to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 31. Paul Moxley, the Utah lawyer who chairs the ABA committee, wrote that “after an exhaustive evaluation process, the Standing Committee has determined by a unanimous vote that Judge Kavanaugh is ‘Well Qualified.’” That is the ABA’s highest rating.

The excuse now being pushed on the ABA behind the scenes isn’t merely the uncorroborated claims of sexual misconduct, which are being investigated by the FBI. The new claim is that Mr. Kavanaugh’s passionate defense of his reputation before the Senate last week showed that he is too political and lacks the proper judicial temperament.

“Judge Kavanaugh did not reflect an impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge,” Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein tweeted on Friday. “He was aggressive and belligerent.”

The media have picked up the meme. “The judge who previously served as a top aide to President George W. Bush and worked for independent counsel Ken Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton tossed aside his earlier judicious language of neutrality,” opined CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic.

This Is No Mere ‘Job Interview’ Even in the court of public opinion, basic fairness should preclude conviction without clear evidence. By Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-is-no-mere-job-interview-1538313919

Until Judge Brett Kavanaugh was accused of horrible crimes—sexual assault, lewd conduct and even gang rape—his confirmation hearings could fairly, if not entirely accurately, be characterized as a “job interview.” The burden was on him to demonstrate his suitability to serve on the Supreme Court. He apparently met that burden in the eyes of a majority, a partisan one to be sure, and seemed on the way to getting the job.

But now everything has changed. So should the burden of persuasion. The behavior of which Judge Kavanaugh has been accused is so serious and devastating that it requires a high level of proof before forming the basis for his rejection. There is an enormous and dispositive difference between a candidate’s rejection on ideological grounds, as was the case with Robert Bork, and rejection on the ground that he has committed crimes warranting lifetime imprisonment rather than a lifetime appointment.

Being on the Supreme Court is a privilege, not a right. But being disqualified based on a false accusation of a crime would be a violation of the fundamental right to fairness. Some will argue that the issue of Judge Kavanaugh’s ideological and professional qualifications should be merged with the sexual allegations and that doubts should be resolved against a lifetime appointment.

In some cases that would be a plausible argument. But it is too late for that kind of nuanced approach now, because these accusations have received world-wide attention. Judge Kavanaugh is on trial for his life. At stake are his career, his family, his legacy and a reputation earned over many decades as a lawyer and judge.

If he is now denied the appointment, it will be because he has been depicted as a sexual predator who deserves contempt, derision and possible imprisonment. He may no longer be able to teach law, coach sports or expect to be treated respectfully. He could be forced to resign his current judicial position, because having a “convicted” rapist on the bench is unseemly. For these reasons, he now has the right—perhaps not a legal right, but a right based on fundamental fairness—to have the charges against him put to the test of clear and convincing evidence or some standard close to that.

Burden is on Avenatti to show proof, or face consequences By Alan Dershowitz,

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409032-burden-on-avenatti-to-show-proof-or-face-consequences

Michael Avenatti, whose judgments have proved questionable so many times, may be right in demanding a thorough investigation of his client’s outrageous claims of multiple gang rapes participated in and witnessed by a young Brett Kavanaugh.

These claims, typical of Avenatti, seem so incredible on their face that even partisan Democratic senators have generally stayed away from them. Yet, if they are true, they are not only disqualifying for Judge Kavanaugh to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court, but they should result in criminal prosecutions of anyone and everyone who allegedly drugged young girls and subjected them to systematic gang rape on multiple occasions.

The affidavit laying out these allegations is so deeply flawed and so filled with gaps that it would be easy for any experienced cross-examiner to raise doubts about the credibility of the affiant. One critical question is why this young woman would repeatedly return to parties where she claims to have witnessed gang rapes of drugged women. Yet, since the charges are so serious, further investigation is warranted.

But there is one condition that should be imposed before an investigation is conducted: The accuser should have to waive her lawyer-client privilege with Avenatti so that investigators can determine how much of her affidavit and how many of her claims were originally her own, and how many, if any, may have been “improved upon” by her conversations with her highly partisan lawyer or others.

If she is telling the truth, she should have no reason for not waiving the privilege. If she is lying, then there is no privilege anyway, since the crime-fraud exception would take it outside of the privilege. She should be asked how she got in contact with Avenatti, who first introduced the term “gang rape” into the conversation, and whether she intended the information she conveyed to Avenatti to be made public.

NIDRA POLLER: JUSTICE FOR DR. FORD

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/justice-for-dr-ford/

In a healthy democracy, one private unelected individual would not determine the future of the US Supreme Court. The appointment of a justice is a political decision that should be debated rationally and ultimately decided by an up down vote, reflecting the balance of political power. The current US president chose a candidate compatible with his politics.But the normal process of appointing a new justice has been jolted out of reality and thrust into a virtual time machine.

At the eleventh hour, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford accuses Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault… in 1982…when she was 15 and he was 17. And suddenly the 21 members of the Senate Judiciary committee are sucked into a grotesque debate over a hypothetical incident that cannot possibly be retrieved for scrupulous investigation. No matter how hard they peer into the crystal ball of the past, they will never find their way to a home that has no address, on a day that exists on no calendar, in the presence of witnesses that were not there.

The question is not he-said-she-said. The question is the civic duty of a responsible citizen, male or female, tempted to come forth with an accusation that would inevitably destroy the reputation of the accused. Whether true or false, an accusation of sexual assault in the age of MeToo is sure to cause irreparable damage to the accused. No due process there!

EU: Politicizing the Internet by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13042/eu-internet-censorship

Even before such EU-wide legislation, similar ostensible “anti-terror legislation” in France, for example, is being used as a political tool against political opponents and to limit unwanted free speech.
In France, simply spreading information about ISIS atrocities is now considered “incitement to terrorism”. It is this kind of legislation, it seems, that the European Commission now wishes to impose on all of the European Union.
Social media giants — Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, Google+ and Instagram — act as voluntary censors on behalf of the European Union.
The European Commission states that it is specifically interested in funding projects that focus on the “development of technology and innovative web tools preventing and countering illegal hate speech online and supporting data collection”, and studies that analyze “the spread of racist and xenophobic hate speech in different Member States…”

In March, the European Commission — the unelected executive branch of the European Union — told social media companies to remove illegal online terrorist content within an hour — or risk facing EU-wide legislation on the topic. This ultimatum was part of a new set of recommendations that applies to all forms of supposedly “illegal content” online. This content ranges “from terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products and copyright infringement.”

While the one-hour ultimatum was ostensibly only about terrorist content, the following is how the European Commission presented the new recommendations at the time:

“… The Commission has taken a number of actions to protect Europeans online – be it from terrorist content, illegal hate speech or fake news… we are continuously looking into ways we can improve our fight against illegal content online. Illegal content means any information which is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, such as content inciting people to terrorism, racist or xenophobic, illegal hate speech, child sexual exploitation… What is illegal offline is also illegal online”.

Nicholas T. Parsons: The Fashion Industry: Not So Pretty Teen Vogue Celebrates Karl Marx!!!!

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/09/fashion-industry-pretty-looks/

Double standards are far more consistent than hemlines in an industry which recently saw Teen Vogue, published by the decidedly capitalist Condé Nast, honour the anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth with a gushing article describing how he exposed the evils of, yes, capitalism.

Contra la moda toda lucha es inútil.
—Josep Pla

Fashion: A despot whom the wise ridicule and obey.
—Ambrose Bierce
The haute couture is a degenerate institution propped up by a sycophantic press.
—Kennedy Fraser

_____________________

fashionWhat most of us immediately associate with the word fashion is its ephemeral nature, likewise its capacity to generate irrational attachment. The most familiar object of such an attachment is clothes, anything from haute couture to jeans with holes scratched out at the knees, where the banal nature of the product is disguised (or in fact celebrated) by brand marketing. Moreover the emetic cult of catwalk celebrity and the narcissistic economy of fashion design would collapse if the majority, at any rate the majority of women, became so contented with last year’s fashion that they just decided to keep their closets unreformed. “The fashion industry is loath to see many days go by,” wrote Kennedy Fraser in The Fashionable Mind (1981), “without trumpeting new eras, and whenever a style emerges, or reappears after an absence, it hurries to coin a title before shoppers can rummage sinfully in closets.” “Fashion,” remarked the Queen of Romania dourly, “exists for women with no taste, just as etiquette is for people with no breeding.”

Happily for the industry, the particular nature of what has been tweaked to make a new frock is less important than the necessity of its purchasers to be, and be seen to be, up with the latest fashion. To quote Fraser again:

If, for many women, the choice of clothes is an anxious, irrational affair, it is made doubly so by our craving to be fashionable. The vagaries of fashion are a denial of constant aesthetic standards, objective ideas of grace or flattery, and the fact that women’s bodies remain much the same from one season to the next.

Dressing in fashion is therefore a matter of status as much as aesthetics, part of what Thorstein Veblen described as “conspicuous consumption”, now expanded to tempt those on lesser incomes with what the drugs industry calls “generic” versions of the stuff paraded before the fakes, cynics, psychopaths and allegedly creative geniuses at the annual fashion shows.

In Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) Veblen explained that, after the second industrial revolution, the emergent nouveaux riches established their social status through patterns of consumption, a conscious attempt to distance themselves from the less well-off and advertise their position in “the leisure class”. An unashamed contemporary demonstration of this phenomenon is afforded by a weekend supplement of the Financial Times stuffed with advertorial matter and the glossiest of glossy pictures, which emphasises the nature of the readership it aims at through its title, How to Spend It. Its critics have dubbed it the “Argos catalogue for the 1 per cent” (Argos being a downmarket mail order business), and it specialises in ludicrous and ludicrously priced goods for the über-rich, especially alpha males (a Rolex Steve McQueen Explorer II watch at £20,000, which is ridiculously cheap when you could instead buy a Franck Muller Aeternitas Mega watch for £2 million; or how about a Maybach Exelero car at £6 million or a Learjet at the giveaway price of £550,000?). Two things are notable about this supplement: first, the rest of the FT is emphatically liberal, even leftist, in its editorials, comment and news coverage. Second, the magazine is by far the most profitable part of the paper and indeed the editor apparently lamented recently that they hadn’t invented another money-spinner like How to Spend It.

How the GOP Could Be the Party of Responsible Tech By Robert Miller

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/30/how-the

The veil separating Google’s inner workings from the outside world recently slipped again with revelations that the company discussed “tweaking” its search engine to help thwart the Trump Administration’s efforts to stem the flow of travelers into the United States from terrorism-prone countries. Adding to existing fears over the censorship of conservative ideas on Google’s platforms and elsewhere in cyberspace, this confirmation of big tech’s ideological echo chamber is only the latest in a growing array of concerns over the tech industry’s growing political power and its threats to public safety and constitutional governance. This techno-political sea change not only threatens to censor debate, it also underscores tech’s threat to privacy, the integrity of networks critical to national security, and the viability of employment in industries threatened by robotics and artificial intelligence.

These new technological changes combine to offer Republicans the chance to broaden their policy platform and make themselves the party of responsible technological regulation.

Who Will Regulate Responsibly?
When asked about where Democrats or the GOP stands on issues such as abortion, the environment, or gun control, even the most vaguely aware voters can draw from general knowledge and state where each party generally stands. Yet, the same cannot be said for problems involving software firms and social media companies. Are Democrats more committed to protecting American jobs from artificial intelligence? Does the GOP’s skepticism of government business regulation extend to companies tasked with protecting consumer information? Which party is more committed to freedom of speech online, or committed to the freedom to virtually assemble? Answers to such questions are not readily apparent because neither party has made a point of staking a claim on regulating big tech.

Voter demand for more responsibility and oversight in the tech industry is readily apparent in many recent polls. In a 2017 poll, more than 70 percent of Americans expressed fears of economic displacement and increased economic inequality caused by robotics and artificial intelligence replacing human workers. A similar survey found that majorities of voters across party affiliations support increased governmental regulation of artificial intelligence, with 73 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans favoring increased oversight.

Jeff Flake’s Long Game By Karin McQuillan

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/29/jeff

Jeff Flake is an ambitious man. His ambition is to sabotage President Trump, the Republican Party, and Trump voters by any means possible.

Few Americans understand the dynamics of fake Republicans in red states, where politically aspiring liberals often put an “R” after their names and run as pretend conservatives, knowing that is their only viable path to high office. Once safely elected, they feel free, like Senator Flake, to actively and sanctimoniously betray their voters.

So it should come as no surprise The Hill newspaper in March reported that Flake has “kept in touch” with former President Obama. Flake told David Axelrod, the former Obama strategist turned CNN host, that Obama called to check on him after the junior senator announced he would not run for reelection.

Flake hates President Trump like poison. He didn’t vote for him. He’s vied with Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) for the title of senator displaying the most open contempt for the president. In his announcement from the Senate floor that he would not be running for re-election, Senator Flake thundered he would “no longer be complicit or silent” in the face of Trump’s supposed “reckless, outrageous, and undignified” behavior—behavior that includes ending the Iran deal, pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, and bringing North Korea and China to the negotiating table.

Flake is proud of his friendship with Obama, a president who repeatedly ignored the constitutional limits of his power by using his “pen and phone” to enact executive orders on immigration, environmental regulations, and international agreements that he couldn’t get Congress to pass.

You Can’t Make Women First-Class Citizens by Making Men Second-Class Citizens By Sarah Hoyt

https://pjmedia.com/trending/help-ive-been-chained-to-a-hundred-and-fifty-million-lunatics/

Sophocles is reported to have said that the male libido was like being chained to a lunatic.

I can honestly say, being a woman in 21st-century America, that I have him beat cold. I have somehow been chained to over a hundred and fifty million lunatics.

Okay, not every woman is a lunatic. I even have women friends. But making friends with women is like making friends in the science fiction field. I start by assuming they will be part of a strange form of Marxist victim-group and I look for signs they might, just might, be safe.

Then there’s a whole dance as you reveal yourself to the other as not-a-standard-woman.

At first, I thought American women had a chip on their shoulder, but I didn’t realize it was nearly this bad.

First, so you can understand where I’m coming from – because I have been told the reason I’m not hot for “feminism” is that women won the fight for me. The country I grew up in gave women the vote in the seventies. Further, when I was a child, getting a private passport for a married woman was difficult, and my mom had a “family passport,” which meant dad had to affidavit her every time she wanted to go to Spain to shop. Married women needed to have permission from their husbands to get a job. (Which meant many women worked under the table.) When I was in fifth and sixth grade, both of which were in mixed classes, it was assumed as a matter of course that girls couldn’t outperform boys, and when I did – routinely – the teachers acted like a wondrous thing had happened.

There were a lot of other restrictions, like the fact that no sane woman would go out after dark because there was a very high chance you’d be confused with a prostitute.

But here’s the thing: I don’t remember ever attributing any actual reverses in my life to being a woman. I managed to enter college. Heck, my cousin, who is 14 years older than me, is a chemical engineer. I don’t think she ever attributed any reversals in her life to being a woman either.

My mother ran her own business and out-earned my father for most of her marriage.

Sure, men discriminated against women. But women could still manage to be successful. And didn’t waste their time attributing their failures or their issues to men’s plotting.

Sure as a young woman I snapped off a lot of noses — and hands and… never mind. At fourteen grandma gave me a hat pin with which to discourage men rubbing against me in the bus. It worked too. And sure, I wished I could have more freedom and that people didn’t assume I was an idiot because I was a woman. But very few of them assumed I was an idiot after I had a chance to open my mouth.

And it truly never occurred to me to think that men were sabotaging me. Once you proved yourself, most men treated you fine.

I didn’t hear the phrase “he’s afraid of a strong woman” until I came to the States.

This was the eighties. To me, the U.S. was a wonderful place. No one acted like I was obviously less smart than boys. And no one treated me like I was a child.

And yet, I soon found that women about ten years older than me attributed all my issues or problems to “men are afraid of strong women.”

I’ve had bad bosses of both sexes, with a slight lead for women, mostly because I’ve had more female bosses. But none of those older women ever said, “Your female boss is afraid of strong women,” even though in my experience females are more likely to be afraid of women who are supposed to be their subordinates and whom they can neither intimidate nor control.

In fact, it was always a mystery to me how these male bosses were supposed to know that I was a “strong woman,” since in my twenties I was shy to the point of incoherence and polite to the point of self-effacement.

After a while that started annoying me, but even then, I don’t think I could possibly have guessed how crazy things were going to go.

Nowadays it seems to be an actual crime to be male. From schools to colleges, we are doing our best to make every boy behave like a girl and every man become just like a woman.

And even then, until this year I couldn’t have imagined the spectacle the Kavanaugh hearings have turned into.

How is it possible that Christina Blasey Ford has been asked to testify before the most august body in the land on a ridiculous, unproven and unprovable charge, which – should it prove true – amounts to the fact that a seventeen-year-old boy might have been uncouth and somewhat ridiculous at a drunken party, something that is neither a crime nor, to be fair, unusual. CONTINUE AT SITE