NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Progressive Regression By Victor Davis Hanson

Posted By on July 31st, 2018

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/30/progressive

Donald Trump has certainly changed the rules of presidential behavior, through his nonstop campaign rallies, tweets, and press conferences. What his critics call lowering the bar of presidential decorum by unfettered and often crude invective, Trump dubs the “new presidential.”

His style has become a sort of “don’t-tread-on-me” combativeness. In truth, Trump at home and abroad is mostly retaliatory. His theory seems to be that no slight should go unanswered. When Trump retorts in kind or trumps the original attack, he believes he adds yet another brick to his wall of deterrence—and exposes the sometimes dormant and disguised irrational hatred of the Left.

But what the Left loses in its slugfests with Trump are some once-supposed cherished leftist principles, justified by the short-term advantage of nullifying the Trump agenda.

Indeed, it is eerie that almost all the canons of progressive orthodoxy no longer apply. And they will no longer be taken seriously after Trump is long gone. Certainly, those lost principles will be impossible to reassert when Democrats return to power and seek sanctuary in the very ideas they have now so utterly trashed.

Liberals, who now warn of Trump’s “war on the press” long ago excused Eric Holder’s monitoring of the Associated Press reporters and Fox News’s James Rosen. And they had no problem with John Brennan lying under oath when he claimed the Obama CIA had not monitored the computers of Senate staffers (he would lie brazenly again under oath about drone collateral damage and his role in seeding the Steele dossier).

Likewise, they snoozed after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress in his denial of government surveillance of U.S. citizens. Both were seen at the time to be useful liars. Their partisanship and exemption from any consequences for past lying under oath led to lucrative cable news gigs—proof, as it were, of their innate Trump hatred. Their legacy is that lying under oath now is not a sin, much less illegal.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Is There a Cure for the Modern University? By David Solway *****

Posted By on July 31st, 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/is_there_a_cure_for_the_modern_university.html

So much has gone wrong with the modern university that one scarcely knows where to begin. Innumerable books have been written on the subject, from Hilda Neatby’s 1953 So Little for the Mind to Michael Rectenwald’s 2018 Springtime for Snowflakes. Articles abound in the thousands. As a former laborer in the educational vineyards, I have attempted a modest contribution to the literature, consisting of three books and dozens of essays and articles, to no particular avail. The academic outlook continues to degenerate, following an agenda that seems to be unstoppable, as if programmed by some ideological Doomsday Machine.

The reasons for the precipitous decline in academic rigor, standards, and outcomes are many and have been thoroughly canvassed. It may be worth bulleting some of them here to suggest the scope of the problem:

the emergence of a therapeutic culture absolving the individual from the demanding and sacrificial pursuit of excellence, valorizing feeling over thought and leading to an observable dumbing down of student capacity and performance. As Philip Rieff wrote in his magisterial The Triumph of the Therapeutic, “the cry of ‘one feels’ [has become] the caveat of the therapeutic.”

political factionalism accentuated by the rise of the postmodern left more interested in indoctrination than scholarship.

the scandal of affirmative action based on criteria of race and sex coupled with quotas placed on qualified white male and Asian students – a numerus clausus rationalized by an ethos of guilt reparation.

equity hiring protocols, the professional counterpart of affirmative action, favoring women, blacks, and indigenous candidates regardless of discipline-specific competence. In Rectenwald’s words, such “blatant tokenism in hiring and promotion jeopardizes the integrity of higher education.”

the incursion of gender politics and the social justice movement into the academic “space” where it has no business being.

the curtailing of academic freedom, which, as Frank Furedi writes in What’s Happened to the University?, has been “devalued through the sanctification of other values” – coercive regulation of conduct, speech codes, politically correct decrees against giving offense, sexual policing, etc.

opening the gates to a vast and intellectually unprepared student clientele in part for reasons of subprime pseudo-justice – everyone deserves a university education irrespective of native ability – and in part for crass monetary purposes – prohibitive tuition fees and per student government grants. This latter goes hand in hand with the industrialization of the university as a corporate enterprise seeking profit rather than truth.

the transformation of a reading culture into a visual and digital culture, rendering students progressively incapable of mastering the nuances, complexities, and semantic rules of written language as well as the habit of, like, coherent, like, conversation. Like, I kid you not, dude!

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Does Diversity Really Unite Us? Citizenship and Immigration see note please

Posted By on July 31st, 2018

Janet Levy Ross writes:

“In Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, Dr. Erler provides a comprehensive treatment of “diversity,” its pitfalls and implications for the perpetuation of our constitutional republic. (Long; but a very worthwhile read).The liberal bleeding hearts are the first to censure America when irresponsible and neglectful parents break the law to drag their children across our border. Clearly, this misplaced blame serves their anti-constitutional agenda for the “radical transformation of America.” Unfortunately, this meme has gained traction amongst many Republicans.”

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 11, 2018, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Colorado Springs.

President Trump’s zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers has provoked a hysterical reaction from Democrats, establishment Republicans, the progressive-liberal media, Hollywood radicals, and the deep state. What particularly motivated the ire of these Trump-haters was the fact that the zero-tolerance policy would require the separation of parents and children at the border. The hysteria was, of course, completely insincere and fabricated, given that the policy of separating children and parents was nothing new—it had been a policy of the Obama and Bush administrations as well.

Furthermore, where is the compassion for the thousands of American children who are separated from their parents every year as a result of arrests and convictions for non-violent crimes? Many of those arrested are single mothers whose infants become wards of the government until their mothers complete their sentences. No hysteria or effusive compassion is elicited by these separations, confirming that the object of the hysteria surrounding illegal border crossers is to force open borders on the nation under the guise of compassion for children.

President Trump’s preferred solution for ending the influx of illegal immigrants and providing border security is a wall; it is also the preferred solution of the American people. Zero tolerance is an interim policy that—if enforced—will help deter illegal crossers. The hysteria provoked by zero tolerance could have been predicted, but its magnitude and sheer insanity are almost breathtaking. Some prominent constitutional scholars have gone so far as to argue that the government has no constitutional authority to control the border. And this, which seems almost beyond hysteria, from the elite intellectual class that should be most immune to hysteria!

In the meantime, a Federal District Court judge in Southern California has discovered a substantive due process right guaranteeing the right to “family integrity” lurking in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and has ordered all children reunited with their illegal immigrant parents. Obviously the judge expects the parents to be released from incarceration to join their children, but the Trump administration seems determined to keep parents and children together in detention centers until legal proceedings determine their fate.

More than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked: “It is an accepted maxim of international law . . . and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within [a sovereign nation’s] dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” This view was reaffirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump’s travel ban on foreign nationals from eight countries, six of which have majority Muslim populations.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Patriotism: The Secret of Trump’s Success By Karin McQuillan

Posted By on July 31st, 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/patriotism_the_secret_of_trumps_success.html

The driving force behind Trump’s winning for America is his powerful patriotism. Patriotism is a virtue that our politicians talk about a lot, in utterly empty ways. Many Democrats think it is a vice. The left wing of the Democratic Party mistakes it for white nationalism. Trump lives American patriotism. It is the reason he ran for president and the reason he won. He knows we are a great country.

Trump recognizes and is comfortable with power – his personal power, America’s power. He does not think power is toxic. He thinks American and presidential power is wonderful and meant to be used for our common, national good.

Our president loves to build. He used to build big apartment and hotel towers with his name on them. Now he is building up America, because he loves America. President Trump’s patriotism has these two equal parts: a strong economy and a strong military. His eye is always on the prize of jobs and security.

Patriotism overflows in his speech on achieving a quarter of 4.1% growth for the economy and the return of fallen heroes’ remains from North Korea.

In everything we do, in every action we take, we are fighting for loyal, hardworking, patriotic citizens of our blessed nation. We’re making our country great again. We’re respected again all over the world. Our military will soon be stronger than it’s ever been, by far.

Unlike his political rivals, President Trump wants to use our full power. We do not need to be intimidated by anybody – not China, not the E.U., not Russia, not Iran, not terrorists. We are the powerhouse. Trump seeks to create win-win situations, but he will not compromise on American interests. If someone is going to lose, it is going to be the other side, not we.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Pastor Brunson, Trump’s America, and Ankara’s Hypocrisy… by Gerald A. Honigman

Posted By on July 31st, 2018

http://q4j-middle-east.com

The headline for the Bizpac Review mailing for July 30th read, “Turkish President Erdogan Warns Trump…”

Before going any further, I’ve valued the American and NATO relationship with the Turks too…the Turkish Straits, the Russian bogeyman, and so forth. But, at what price?

The current dispute is over the demand that Washington issued that Ankara release American Pastor Andrew Brunson, imprisoned since 2016, who had a small church in Turkey that Turks accuse of supporting “terrorists–i.e. especially Kurds, who’ve done most of America’s fighting against ISIS and other Jihadis. They refuse to accept that they’re really just “Mountain Turks,” as Ankara renamed them after also outlawing their language and culture, and have forcibly reacted against their bloody subjugators.

Now, if this doesn’t sound familiar, think about what happened to some two million or more Christian Armenians and Assyrians, and others who, like those (Muslim) Kurds above (some 22 million just in Turkey alone, 20 to 25 % of the population), dared to suggest that they too had their own pre-Turkish (and pre-Arab) invasion identities, let alone rights and aspirations in the age of nationalism as well.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Communism Is as Socialism Does (and Vice Versa) by: Diana West

Posted By on July 31st, 2018

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3769/Communism-Is-as-Socialism-Does-and-Vice-Versa.aspx

They argue and split hairs, they fight and break heads, they work together and destroy liberty because they all travel to the same soul-crushing destination. As far as liberty-loving anti-communists are concerned, communists and socialists — and “democractic socialists,” Fabians, progressives, Alinskyites (not to mention most Democrats and an awful lot of Republicans), etc. — believe in the same centrally planned, varyingly totalitarian vision for America that the founding fathers would have had to declare independence from all over again.

To that point of ideological convergence, a couple of quotations

The first is from Rene Wormser, a renowned lawyer specializing in estate planning and taxation who served admirably as the general counsel of the Reece committee, the second of two 1950s congressional committees investigating the Marxist/socialist/communist/progressive/etc./etc./etc. subversion of the great American foundations, which, of course, undergirded the subversion of our educational institutions.

Reflecting on both committees’ work, Wormser wrote the following on pp. 177-178 of his extremely important book, Foundations:

Socialist Penetration

The two recent Congressional investigations were largely concerned with “subversion.” The Cox Committee interpreted this term to include only international communism of the Stalinist brand and organized fascism. The Reece Committee, in the course of its work, came to give the term broader or deeper meaning. Neither investigation established sharply, however, the characteristics of Communist activity which would be clearly held to be subversive. In the public mind, the term “subversion” is generally confined to Moscow-directed Communist activity, or that of domestic Communists allied in an international conspiracy. The emphasis on a search for organized Communist penetration of foundations absorbed much of the energy of the investigators and detracted somewhat from the efficacy of their general inquiry into “subversion.”

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Peter O’Brien Snake Oil in a 26% Solution

Posted By on July 30th, 2018

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/07/whitewashing-pain-ahead-26-solution/

For argument’s sake, accept that global warming is more than fanciful algorithms and careerism. Now wonder how Australia will ever make its 2030 targets, given the energy sector represents only about a quarter of our emissions. Conclusion: there’s far more ruinous stupidity yet to be revealed.

As Australia’s contribution to the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the Turnbull government has gallantly committed to reducing our CO2 emissions by 26%-to-28% of 2005 levels by 2030. It is important to note that we are already at 0.8C warming so we, the world that is, has only got 1.2C to play with. We claim that we only contribute 1.3% of global emissions so, logically, our aim should presumably be to chip in at least 0.016C of cooling.

So somewhere in our great bureaucracy there must be a calculation that shows that reducing our total emissions by 26% (or 155MtCO2e) will achieve this aim. Or so you would hope.

Let me digress slightly but bear with me. Recently, The Australian editorialized (www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/take-the-politicking-out-of-infrastructure-projects/news-story/41e1b27bda05b884949a5e2bd8de4ca9) on the topic of the politicization of infrastructure development. That editorial quoted Philip Davies, outgoing head of Infrastructure Australia:

Too often we see commitments being made to projects before a business case has been prepared, a full set of options has been considered and rigorous analysis of a potential project’s benefits and costs has been undertaken.

Too right! The Australian editorial used the NBN as the most flagrant example of this malaise. But it occurs to me that, while not strictly an infrastructure project per se, our Paris Agreement commitment puts the NBN in the shade in this respect.

Nowhere in all of the Turnbull/Frydenberg propaganda – in speeches, press releases, fact sheets or any publicly available documentation on government web site – is the figure of 0.016C mentioned, or any other temperature goal. There is a total disconnect between the stated aim of the Paris Agreement and our CO2 emissions reduction target. In fact, politically, it could not be otherwise because that would drag the naked emperor into full, pitiless sunlight. However, I am not concerned with politics but good governance, something which is conspicuously missing in this debacle.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Darryl Budge: Politically Correct Medicine

Posted By on July 30th, 2018

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/07/politically-correct-medicine/

The Medical Board of Australia is pushing a draft code that would oblige physicians to accept and thereby endorse ‘cultural practices’ antithetical to both good medicine and civilised conduct. Female genital mutilation, payback spearings — apparently these demand ‘respect’…..

A proposed Code of Conduct, which is open for public submissions until August 3, could force doctors to accept ‘cultural beliefs and practises’ that are opposed to good medical practise, according to a group of doctors.

The Medical Board of Australia draft code of conduct that will apply to all Australian doctors requires doctors to be “culturally safe” and comply with a patients’ beliefs about gender identity and sexuality, with no provision given for a doctor to differ in their professional judgements. A doctors’ group convened by Dr Lachlan Dunjey of Perth, has expressed concern for the future of medicine in Australia in light of the changes.

“We are concerned with the possible interpretation of ‘culturally safe’, that it should not impact on good health outcomes and good medical practice”, the group has stated. “We are concerned that ‘respectful practice’ is significantly different to ‘respectful of the beliefs and cultures of others’ and that this change also could impact on good health outcomes.

“Respect for a patient does not equal respecting ‘cultural beliefs and practices’ that may be antithetical to good medical practice.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Pakistan’s Deep State Seeks a New Patron Forget elections. The military’s ties to Beijing will shape the country’s future. Walter Russel Mead

Posted By on July 30th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistans-deep-state-seeks-a-new-patron-1532989532

Another meaningless Pakistani election has attracted another burst of world media attention. Last week, voters gave the party of former cricket player Imran Khan a plurality in Parliament, making him the likely next prime minister. The press is full of accounts of what Mr. Khan’s victory means for the troubled country. But the real decisions in Pakistan are made by unelected military officers—and the media’s dutiful coverage of the nation’s all but ceremonial electoral process is a major propaganda victory for the permanent ruling establishment.

Pakistan matters, even if its elections don’t. It is the world’s only nuclear state with deep ties to terror groups. And its national-security elite believes it is locked in an existential competition with India, its much larger, richer and more technologically advanced southern neighbor. Yet Pakistan simply does not have the economic capacity to keep up this security competition. That has been true since the partition in 1947, and it became more pronounced when India helped East Pakistan emerge as independent Bangladesh in 1971.

Pakistan’s security disadvantage has always had a profound impact on its politics. The imbalance has driven Pakistan’s concentration of power in the hands of the military, its quest for nuclear weapons to counteract India’s edge in conventional warfare, its dependence on patrons and paymasters to bridge the resource gap, and its deepening reliance on Islam as a legitimating force.

There is little room for actual democracy under these circumstances, or so Pakistan’s rulers believe. But they have come to understand the advantages of a democratic charade. The blame for problems with public services like sewers, roads and schools—often exacerbated by the resource constraints imposed by the military’s security fixation—can be shifted onto politicians. When political parties become enmeshed in corruption scandals, the military presents itself as the clean and patriotic alternative, siding with the people against a crooked elite. The political pageantry currently being indulged by the press diverts attention from the hard fact of military rule without endangering the national-security establishment’s position at the heart of the state. Even controversies over the fairness of the election process contribute to the effectiveness of the dictatorship’s disguise.

Not that electoral competition in Pakistan is entirely without consequences. Politicians who win elections don’t gain power over the strategic direction of the state, but they do win government jobs and lucrative contracts for family and friends, along with other rewards and emoluments of office. The rival clans and ethnic groups who back Pakistan’s political parties sincerely want their side to win. Favored access to the governmental piggy bank is no small thing, and collaborating in a sham process that keeps the military in power is a small price to pay.

The most important story in Pakistan today is not the elevation of Mr. Khan, the military’s preferred candidate. It is that the U.S., Pakistan’s principal ally during both the Cold War and the war on terror, is no longer interested in subsidizing a partner it needs and trusts less and less. Pakistan’s military rulers are therefore seeking a new patron, and China is eager to fill the void. CONTINUE AT SITE

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Trump, Putin and the Montenegro Question NATO’s newest member vexes Russia and occasions unsettling comments from the U.S. president. By Michael B. Mukasey

Posted By on July 30th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-putin-and-the-montenegro-question-1532989476

Two weeks have passed since the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, but there is still no public account of what the two leaders said—other than their own self-congratulatory remarks. But the recent actions of the U.S. and Russian presidents suggest they may have discussed the role and ambitions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, taking steps toward a rebalancing of power that should worry Europeans and Americans alike.

President Trump provided one clue in his statements about Montenegro, a tiny Eastern European country and the newest NATO member. During a July 18 conversation with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, he suggested that “aggressive” Montenegrins might start a global conflict. To be fair, Mr. Trump didn’t raise the subject; it was Mr. Carlson who suggested that honoring NATO’s mutual-defense obligation might entangle the U.S. in a fight Americans would rather sit out. But once the subject was raised, Mr. Trump pounced—conjuring the specter of Montenegro dragging the U.S. into World War III.

Where did that come from? There’s no evidence that Mr. Trump had any earlier concern about Montenegro, or even that he knew where it was. Though Montenegro joined NATO shortly after he took office, Mr. Trump’s only direct interaction with the country on record came during a photo session at last year’s NATO summit, when he shoved aside Montenegrin President Dusko Markovic to get a spot in the front row.

There is plenty of evidence, however, that Russia is worried about Montenegro’s accession to NATO. The Kremlin promised unspecified retaliation against NATO in 2015 when the alliance first formally offered membership to Montenegro. Senior Russian officials claim that, in adding the Balkan country to the alliance, NATO members violated their promise not to expand the alliance eastward—an assurance they had given Russia during the presidency of George H.W. Bush.