Displaying the most recent of 90425 posts written by

Ruth King

After the French Riots “Laxity and submission.” by Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/after-the-french-riots/

So the latest round of rioting in France seems at last to have burned itself out. In the end, it didn’t expand into a Muslim revolution; it didn’t succeed in overthrowing the French Republic; it didn’t lead to the first transformation of a Western republic into a sharia state. But this doesn’t mean that France won’t eventually be brought down in such a way, and sooner rather than later. All it will take is one more minor police action that triggers the nation’s Muslims into a tsunami of fierce and extraordinary violence – a tsunami that, unlike this time, doesn’t end until it makes the Reign of Terror look like a scene from Gigi.

Certainly the cooling-off of Muslim rage owed nothing whatsoever to the efforts of Emmanuel Macron or any other French leader. Nor did it owe anything to the French electorate which – although it’s been offered the opportunity in recent years to install in the Élysée Palace a principled and intrepid agent of change like Marine le Pen, Valérie Pécresse, or Éric Zemmour – has instead voted repeatedly for more of the same. Voted, that is, for hopeless establishment types like Macron, who over the years has spoken out of both sides of his mouth on the immigration issue – celebrating Muslim imports as an economic boon, then formulating a five-point program to defeat “Islamic separatism,” then “clarifying” his plan with a declaration of his deep respect for the Islamic faith.

Well, there’s one positive thing to be said about last week’s riots: they brought Western Europe’s alarming predicament into focus in a manner that few events in recent years have succeeded in doing, and, one can only hope, have opened the eyes of a considerable number of people who’d previously managed to avoid facing up to reality. How many people? Who knows?

Even before the rioting, to be sure, most Frenchmen understood very well what they were up against. Although heroic truth-tellers like Zemmour have been condemned in the French media for promoting the so-called “replacement theory” – i.e., the belief that native Europeans are being gradually supplanted by foreign peoples whose mass immigration over recent decades is the consequence of policies instituted by political elites without the consent of the populace. In fact, surveys have shown that most Frenchmen subscribe to the “replacement theory.”

The Folly of Wind-John Hinderaker

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/the-folly-of-wind.php

The U.S., like much of Europe, has supposedly committed itself to replacing fossil fuels with “green” energy, which mostly means wind. This will never happen, and the effort to make it happen will collapse in ignominy and economic and social chaos. The reason is simple: wind turbines, and even more so solar panels, fail to produce electricity a large majority of the time. Just as bad, their failures are unpredictable and often ill-timed.

Here in the Upper Midwest, we have experienced a couple of hot weeks, which means that air conditioners have been running. MISO, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, has a nominal 28,572 megawatts of wind energy on its grid. Surely the wind turbines were able to keep the air conditioners running. Right?

Just kidding. Isaac Orr explains:

The graph below shows wind capacity factors in MISO during the same period in blue. A capacity factor is a percentage of how much electricity a power plant generates compared to its theoretical maximum output.

The graph also shows the capacity value that MISO gives to wind turbines, which is intended to measure the reliable capacity that the asset is supposed to contribute during peak electricity demand. In 2023, MISO expects wind turbines to operate at an 18.1 percent capacity factor during times of peak demand, shown in red in the chart.

Here’s What You Need To Know About France’s ‘Summer Of Love’ Riots By: Shawn Fleetwood

https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/06/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-frances-summer-of-love-riots/

The ongoing situation in France bears a striking resemblance to the Black Lives Matter and Antifa violence that engulfed American cities following the May 2020 death of George Floyd.

French authorities have estimated that rioters have burned or looted more than 1,100 public and private buildings over the past week in their violent response to a police shooting involving a 17-year-old French citizen of Algerian descent.

On Wednesday, a French news outlet reported that, according to the country’s Ministry of the Interior, roughly 1,105 buildings including police stations, town halls, and schools have been assaulted since riots began on June 27. French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire told a CNN affiliate that more than 1,000 businesses have been “vandalised, attacked or set on fire.” The damages are estimated to cost over $1 billion.

The impetus for the nationwide violence occurred on June 27, when a French police officer shot and killed 17-year-old “Nahel M.” during a traffic stop. While exact details of the situation remain unclear, early reports indicate the situation unfolded after police pulled the young man over in a Paris suburb for allegedly breaking traffic rules. According to Fox News, police have reportedly claimed Nahel “drove his car at one of the officers, while the video [of the incident] shows one of the officers pointing a weapon at him and saying, ‘You are going to get a bullet in the head.’”

“The officer then appears to shoot Nahel as the car suddenly pulls away, traveling only a short distance before crashing, with Nahel dying at the scene. Police took the offending officer into custody and opened an investigation into charges of voluntary manslaughter, with charges brought against him on Friday,” the Fox report reads. The officer’s lawyers have since claimed their client meant to shoot Nahel in the leg but was bumped into when the car took off and did not intend to kill him.

Biden’s Boast About Jobs Is Coming Undone

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/07/07/bidens-boast-about-jobs-is-coming-undone/

We’ve pointed out how President Joe Biden is being purposely deceptive when he brags about creating 13 million jobs. An honest accounting shows the job gains to be more like 3.7 million. But what if even that altogether unimpressive number is itself a wild exaggeration?

Job growth is one of the only things Biden has to justify his reelection. He can’t talk about inflation – it’s still punishingly high. He can’t talk about real wages – they’re falling. He can’t talk about economic optimism – it’s in the dumps. He can’t point to any poll about his handling of the economy – they all give him failing grades. He can’t claim to have unified the country – as our poll this week showed. So, he plays up job creation.

Last week, Biden gave a speech claiming that “Bidenomics is working,” and tweeted out a chart showing average monthly job growth in each of the past seven presidents, with a caption that reads: “My administration has created more jobs in two years than any previous administration has created in the first four years. It’s no accident. It means our economic plan is working and this is only the beginning.”

This is the dictionary definition of lying with statistics.

Data from Biden’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 72% of the jobs the president brags about weren’t “created,” they were simply reclaiming jobs lost during the pointless COVID lockdowns.

China Tariffs: A Solution That’s Simple,Direct,Plausible…..and Wrong David Goldman

https://www.newsweek.com/china-tariffs-solution-thats-simple-direct-plausible-wrong-opinion-1810578

Donald Trump’s chief trade official, Robert Lighthizer, devised the 2018 tariffs on many Chinese imports, and now wants to double down on a failed policy. His new book No Trade is Free proposes “strategic de-coupling” from China through even higher tariffs and related measures. This brings to mind H. L. Mencken’s crack that “for every complex problem, there is a solution, that is simple, direct, plausible—and wrong.”

U.S. imports from China have risen despite Trump’s tariffs on a range of Chinese products, as the $6 trillion in COVID stimulus spending created demand that American manufacturers couldn’t fill—but China could. U.S. and Chinese data diverge, because (as the Federal Reserve showed in a 2021 study) China counts exports that reach the U.S. via a third country while the U.S. doesn’t.

If a policy failed the first time around, why double down on it? It would be better for the U.S. to revise the tax code to favor capital-intensive manufacturing, restore Reagan-level funding for high-tech R&D, build infrastructure, ease up on environmental restrictions, provide apprenticeships for skilled workers, and subsidize industries critical to national security.

Tal Fortgang Hollow Words After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, law schools belatedly (and unconvincingly) assert the importance of viewpoint diversity.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/law-schools-hollow-commitment-to-viewpoint-diversity

Just hours after the Supreme Court announced its decision in the Students for Fair Admissions cases, the president of NYU, from whose law school I recently graduated, sent out an email to alumni, announcing on behalf of the institution that June 29—the date that race-based admissions schemes were found to violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all—was “a difficult day,” because “diversity is a core part of our identity.” Nonetheless, NYU would find a way to stand defiant: “we will not forsake our commitment to building and sustaining a scholarly community that is diverse and inclusive, a community to which you all rightly belong.”

Peer institutions sent similar messages to their alumni and posted on social media. Georgetown, though “deeply disappointed,” vowed that it would continue “ensuring that the full range of voices, histories and experiences are included in our academic community.” Yale “emphatically” affirmed that it remained “fully committed to creating an inclusive, diverse, and excellent educational environment” and “to ensuring that our university is home to a diverse range of ideas, expertise, and experiences.” The University of Southern California’s statement stood out for its flair. The Court’s decision was “very disappointing,” but USC would carry on providing an atmosphere “where differing backgrounds and points of view are embraced, where ideas collide, beliefs are challenged, and innovation thrives.”

Paragraph break, for flourish: “We will not go backward.”

Apparently our best and brightest missed the glaring contradiction at the heart of their messages. While lamenting a decision that they say strikes at their ability to foster, for instance, “a diverse range of ideas, expertise, and experiences,” they all take the same institutional position on a highly contested issue. Do USC students who agree with the Court’s decision—who would, if the student body reflected national opinion on the issue, constitute at least half the student population—feel that their university welcomes a point of view that their administration equates with backwardness? Does Yale advance its mission of hosting a “diverse range of ideas” by announcing that it considers a 6-3 majority’s decision beyond the pale?

Ian Kingsbury Selective Research from the AAMC The Association of American Medical Colleges goes cherry-picking for data supporting “racial concordance” in patient treatment.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-association-of-american-medical-colleges-selective-research

Early last month, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)—the organization that oversees the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and cosponsors the accrediting body for all medical schools— published a story claiming that black patients fare better with black doctors, an idea that has become popular across the health-care establishment. That it was being amplified just as the Supreme Court prepared to hand down its landmark ruling on affirmative action was neither subtle nor coincidental. Woke activists are determined to sell the idea that race-based medical school admissions are noble and sensible to justify skirting bans on affirmative action. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson even paid lip service to the purported benefits of doctor-patient race concordance in her dissent.

The notion that patients benefit from seeing doctors who share their race is dubious to the majority of us who know better than to essentialize race in our encounters with others. So is the implicit claim that lowering standards and elevating race in medical school admissions maximizes patient welfare. Indeed, the quality of the studies that AAMC cited to support these claims are as poor as one might expect.

Take, for example, a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. It observes that black life expectancy is longer in counties with higher proportions of black primary care providers (PCPs). But the researchers make no allowance for how their results are shaped by their modeling of the relationship between black representation among PCPs and life expectancy—including a curious decision to omit the roughly 50 percent of counties that don’t have any black PCPs. Data can be manipulated to reach just about any conclusion. The researchers’ failure to demonstrate that their results are robust, and not dependent on their very specific parameters, should leave readers deeply skeptical.

One Man Versus China By John Stossel

https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/07/05/one-man-versus-china-n1708480

This week, while we celebrate the work of America’s founders, I honor a living freedom fighter: billionaire businessman Jimmy Lai.

When Communist China crushed freedom in Hong Kong, Lai could have gone anywhere in the world and lived a life of luxury. But he chose to stay in Hong Kong and go to jail.

A new documentary, “The Hong Konger,” tells his story.

Lai grew up in poverty in China.

“My mother was (imprisoned) in a labor camp,” he recalls. “We were just 5 or 6 and managing ourselves without an adult in the household. When I was 8 and 9, I worked in the railway station carrying people’s baggage.”

There he learned about a little British-controlled island near China called Hong Kong, where people were less poor. So he went there “in the bottom of a fishing junk, together with maybe 100, maybe 80, people, and everybody vomiting.”

Once in Hong Kong, he was amazed at how plentiful food was. “I never saw so many things for breakfast. I was so moved. I was crying.”

‘Ending that occupation’ without a solid peace agreement is impossible. Here’s why Moshe Dann

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-748976

Using legal and humanitarian arguments to justify Palestinian demands ignores Israel’s legitimate claims to Judea and Samaria and its security needs.

According to the European Union, which influences policymaking in the international community, Israel’s occupation of the “West Bank” (areas that the IDF conquered in 1967) is a “violation of international law” – the Hague and Fourth Geneva Conventions – and is illegal; therefore, Israel must withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines.

While this is a powerful and effective emotional and psychological weapon against Israel, few understand that, for Palestinians, “the occupation” includes all of Israel, everything “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”

The EU’s position, however, is baseless

The League of Nations recognized the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in the area; this was incorporated into the UN’s Charter (Article 80). The FGC defines “occupation” as occurring between states (“high contracting parties”); only Israel qualifies.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, however, declared that Israel was guilty of illegally “occupying Palestinian territory.” And, since the ICRC has special observer status at the UN and a special position in the FGC, its decisions are considered authoritative. The EU and UN adopted this as “humanitarian law.”

Although Israel withdrew from Areas A and B in Judea and Samaria as stipulated in the Oslo Accords, and assisted the Palestinian Authority to develop its institutional structure, the focus turned to denying Israel’s legal and historical claims to Area C, where all of the “settlements” are located. The debate over further territorial concessions, however, ended because terrorism and incitement continued unabated. Moreover, Iranian proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip – were empowered. The mantras of “land for peace” and “the two-state solution” became irrelevant, even for many in the international community.

Harvard’s Stages of Grief Over Affirmative Action ‘Today is a hard day,’ the university’s president said after the Supreme Court ruling. Tomorrow the topic will finally be open to debate. By Ruth R. Wisse

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-stages-of-grief-over-affirmative-action-sffa-court-higher-ed-87dd642a?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court announced its ruling for the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, I received several emails about the decision. From Harvard’s president-elect, Claudine Gay, a message of shared grief: “Today is a hard day, and if you are feeling the gravity of that, I want you to know you’re not alone.” A personal message from a former student: “Today is a great day in the life of the country.”

The difference was that the student was writing to someone he knew shared his opinion, while the president assumed that everyone shared hers. In that difference lies the corruption at the heart of higher education. Like many universities, Harvard has been striving for a uniformity of prestamped opinions that its incoming president assumes. But Students for Fair Admissions invites us to hope for a pause if not a turning point in that demand for uniformity.

As a professor at Harvard starting in 1993, I saw how a great university fell into this robotic state. From the mid-1990s to my retirement in 2014, I spoke out against what I insisted on calling “group preferences” whenever the subject was raised at faculty meetings. First among my many concerns was how the pursuit of diversity, engineered on the basis of race, subverted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That legislation, itself regrettably belated, had guaranteed freedom from “discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin,” even if such treatment was locally required by law. Brave Americans had fought hard to secure those individual rights, and social experiments in other countries had proved that an imposed equality of results impeded the advancement of their supposed beneficiaries.

I also objected on academic grounds that the goal of correcting for socioeconomic inequality was replacing the goal of intellectual inquiry, the search for truth and the pursuit of excellence. Had the school truly wanted to correct racial inequities it would have used its resources to improve the education of millions of underserved children. Instead, I argued, the university’s embrace of racial categories could only deepen and promote politics on behalf of existing grievances.

But the most immediate and consequential effect of engineered group diversity was to quash debate. When I questioned then-president Neil Rudenstine’s self-satisfied report on “diversity at Harvard” to the faculty of arts and sciences in 1996, he was roused to respond with “an uncharacteristic display of emotion,” as the next day’s issue of the student newspaper, the Crimson, described it. In her turn, his successor Drew Faust laughed off my proposal at another such faculty meeting that Harvard investigate the correlation between the introduction of imposed group diversity and the decline of diversity of opinion.

These incidents did me no personal harm, and they would have been amusing had I not worried about the pusillanimity they encouraged. In what was meant as a warning to others, one of my professorial colleagues informed the Crimson that no one listens to Prof. Wisse.