BOOKS Comments turned off

The Liberal Hypocrites Fighting the Koch Brothers on Campus They say they want to end the billionaire brothers’ pernicious influence on higher education, but they really just want to banish opposing viewpoints from their orbit. By Ian Tuttle

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

The success of America’s institutions of higher learning is thanks in no small part to the largesse of America’s most generous citizens — persons with names such as Rockefeller and Carnegie. That tradition continues today. But one of the names has left-wing groups in a fit.

According to UnKoch My Campus (UKMC), a group of “students and activists” dedicated to exposing “the Kochs and their vast network of front groups,” the brothers have donated to more than 300 colleges since 2005. Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times estimated the total amount at $68 million as of 2013. UKMC alleges that these donations are intended “to undermine the issues many students today care about: environmental protection, worker’s rights, healthcare expansion, and quality public education, to name just a few.”

Supposedly in the interest of “accountability,” UKMC has been using open-records laws to intimidate professors and administrators involved in any academic work associated with Koch donations.

Last year, Ross Emmett, co-director of Michigan State University’s Center for Innovation & Economic Prosperity, who used Koch money to found a seminar — the Koch Scholars — that studies political economists such as F. A. Hayek and Karl Marx, was forced to release documents to student activists. In 2014, the head of the University of Kansas’s Students for a Sustainable Future filed a state records request demanding a decade’s worth of private correspondence from Professor Art Hall, director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas School of Business. Hall, who had received a seed grant from the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation and testified against green-energy quotas before the state legislature, sued, alleging a “fishing expedition.” A year later, he reached a settlement with the university.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Trump’s Intellectuals They’re out there–beyond the Beltway.

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

Inside the Beltway and along the Washington-to-Boston corridor, #NeverTrump has won the hearts and minds of conservative intellectuals and the high-toned media. The dissenters—yes, there are some—make a lot less noise.

But move away from the East Coast and it’s a different story. Out there, the conservative intelligentsia isn’t aligned against Donald Trump—quite the contrary. Roger L. Simon, the screenwriter, novelist, and former CEO of PJ Media, predicted last August that Trump would win the presidency. Nine months later, in May, he wrote that “it still holds true.”

“Like others, I want things to change .  .  . and Donald seems like the man with the courage and will to do it,” Simon writes. “He’s unafraid. He’s upbeat. He’s funny. He despises political correctness (as anybody with a brain does). .  .  . I can think of no greater antidote to Obama than a Trump presidency.”

Simon is only the most enthusiastic of the conservative highbrows not mired in the East who have grappled with the Trump phenomenon. Their views cover a wide range: from mere opposition to #NeverTrump to mildly pro-Trump to recognition of Trump’s strengths to disclosing they intend to vote for him.

Dennis Prager, the L.A.-based syndicated talk radio host and columnist, said when the presidential debates started “that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter.” Last week, he took on #NeverTrump conservatives.

He disputed their “conscience” argument. “I don’t find it compelling because it means that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton or any other Democrat to win,” he writes. “But if you wish to vanquish the bad, it’s not possible—at least not on this side of the afterlife—to remain pure.”

The most sweeping and impressive appraisal of Trump appears in the spring issue of the Claremont Review of Books, written by its editor Charles Kesler, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. Kesler, too, disses the #NeverTrump movement. “Conservatives care too much about the party and the country to wash our hands of this election,” he writes. “A third party bid would be quixotic.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Fred Upton Should Not Cave on Mental-Illness Bill The two federal agencies focused on mental illness should be headed by medical doctors. By D. J. Jaffe

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

When it returns in June, house leadership has indicated it may take up a mental-health bill originally proposed by Representative Tim Murphy (R., Penn.), the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646) as rewritten by Representative Fred Upton (R., Michigan). The well-intentioned Upton rewrite keeps some important provisions of the original bill, but it ignores the core finding of Murphy’s multi-year investigation of the mental-health system. Murphy found that we do not need to spend more money to cut the practice of incarcerating 365,000 seriously mentally ill, or to help the 140,000 seriously mentally ill who today go homeless. What’s required is for Congress to focus already-existing funding streams on treating adults known to have serious mental illness instead of using them to improve mental wellness in all others. It is the most seriously ill — not the worried well — who are most likely to become homeless or incarcerated or violent.

While some think more money is the only answer, the federal government already spends $130 billion annually on mental-health services, yet homelessness, arrest, incarceration, and violence related to untreated serious mental illness are all rising. That’s because the two agencies government charged with setting mental health policy — the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) and the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS)­­ — moved away from a science-based system that spent mental-health dollars on delivering treatment to adults who were the most seriously mentally ill and who most needed treatment. Tragically, the system today largely ignores science and the seriously ill. Instead it works to improve the “sense of wellness” in the highest functioning. Under this new rubric, anything that makes you feel sad is now a mental illness.

National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and leading experts such as Dr. Sally Satel at the American Enterprise Institute, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey of the Treatment Advocacy Center, as well as my own organization Mental Illness Policy Org have extensively documented how SAMHSA and CMHS drive federal dollars away from the core mission of helping the most seriously ill. SAMHSA promotes prevention in spite of the fact that there is no known way to prevent serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression. “Preventing mental illness” is a great sound bite but lousy science. They use funds to address “trauma.” But everyone loses a parent and many people experience a trauma at some point. That is not a mental illness. It is part of life. Because SAMHSA and CMHS have no doctors at the top — or even on staff — they certify ineffective programs as being evidence-based. Virtually the only people who support SAMHSA or CMHS are those who receive SAMHSA and CMHS funds. That is not who Upton should listen to.

BOOKS Comments turned off

FROM AUSTRALIA…WITH HATE

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

And as we see, the Israel-haters from the “Australia Palestine Advocacy Network”are on the campaign trail:AIJAC, meanwhile, has posed thirteen questions a-piece to current prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and his main rival, ALP leader Bill Shorten, regarding their respective policies regarding Israel.

As will be seen by clicking this link, both parties are broadly similar on most issues. There is nothing that can be considered over-the-top hostile or alarming from either of them. Nevertheless, there seems to be little doubt that the ALP is worse from a Jewish communal perspective, especially if we read between the lines.

For unlike the Coalition the ALP is increasingly dependent on the Muslim vote, especially in western Sydney and in north Melbourne. It also is dependent on the Greens, who are openly hostile to Israel. The ALP also has various left-wing anti-Israel activists.

Reading the answers to the questions, there are several areas of concern:

– Counter-terrorism”: The ALP emphasises “early intervention and community engagement” and quotes that “we can’t arrest our way to success”. These are cop-outs, and suggest that terrorists won’t be monitored and stopped as effectively under an ALP government as under the Coalition.

-Schools: There is little between the two parties, but the ALP purely needs-based policy should be looked at closely for its possible impact on Jewish day school funding.

– The ABC (Australia’s equivalent of the BBC): The Coalition hasn’t been great, not with Turnbull as Communications Minister, but it seems clear that an ALP government would adopt a hands-off policy towards the ABC, even if (as it is) it is blatantly controlled by the Left and is hostile to Israel.

– 18C: This legislation can be used, and has been used, by leftists to silence conservative columnist Andrew Bolt and others, and should be repealed or modified. It is an open invitation, under an ALP government, to silence anti-Muslim blogs. It should have been repealed by Tony Abbott, who chickened out, but at least it is not being used as a left-wing weapon.

– UN Votes: An ALP government would obviously be more critical of Israel at the UN than a Coalition government.

So, leaving aside other policy issues, it seems clear that the ALP is at least marginally worse across the board.

Meanwhile, from the BDSers in Adelaide, who are a persistent bunch indeed, a singularly amateurish piece of work kicks of a new campaign of theirs:

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

MAY 2016-THE MONTH THAT WAS BY SYDNEY WILLIAMS

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

From a personal perspective, “lusty” is not an adjective I would have used, but some things in May did go “blissfully astray,” and a few provoked smiles: The man in New York’s Times Square, with a sign “Free Hugs,” who punched a woman in the face for naively believing the sign meant what it said. India reported that it was doing its bit for global warming; they are developing a feedstock that will make cows and other ruminants less flatulent. President Obama, claiming equality for transgenders, demanded that public high school bathrooms and showers be available to students based on gender identity, rather than gender at birth. (The Sidwell Friends School in Bethesda, I am sure, will be exempt.)

But these are not really funny. The first reflects a lack of civility necessary for society to function smoothly. The second, a questionable government expenditure in a country that is home to the world’s largest population of poor. And the third, identity politics substituting for common sense.

On the other hand, Boris Johnson’s winning limerick about Turkish President Recap Tayyip Erdogan’s fictional love affair with a goat was funny. London’s mayor had submitted his poem to The Spectator’s “President Erdogan Offensive Poetry contest.” The limerick, which cannot be repeated in this PG publication but which will elicit a smile from all but the most politically correct, can be found by googling “Johnson,” “limerick,” “Erdogan” and “goat.” Mr. Erdogan had asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel to allow a lawsuit under some dusty 19th Century law that forbade German citizens from insulting foreign leaders. With eyes focused on Turkey’s large number of refugees and not wanting to upset its authoritarian leader, Ms. Merkel permitted the suit against German comedian Jan Bohmermann.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Worried About Hillary and Trump? This is How to Limit the Carnage By: Benjamin Weingarten –

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

Two people are currently vying for the highest office in the world: one an alleged criminal with no achievements to her name during a lifetime of public disservice save for audaciously and adroitly “monetizing” her political capital; and the other a demagogic, narcissistic lothario with no apparent ideological principles but an unquenchable thirst for power and self-aggrandizement during a lifetime of public showmanship — one whose populist appeal stems largely from proposing politically incorrect policies (from which he has readily backed away when challenged).

One would think that such a contest might cause Americans to take pause and think through just how it is that in a nation of over 300 million people, either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald J. Trump will be the next steward of the republic.

Sure, one could make the case that Hillary and Donald are representative of 21st century America: Clinton as an identity politics-playing “victim” who has made an art of achieving higher and higher offices without accomplishment as is emblematic of our societal move towards politics over merit; and Trump as a reality TV star who has made millions of Americans part of the show, and who like many actors in the American economy has made his fortune off of an “asset-lite” strategy built on leverage and brand value.

But this cynical view aside, a rational response to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump might entail asking some fundamental questions about politics itself — fundamental questions that are ignored in the day-to-day hurly-burly of a campaign in the era of social media.

There are three deeper questions for those who lament our current predicament:

Why is it that politics seems to reward most those who are so personally flawed and power-hungry?
Why do those who are so personally flawed and power-hungry seek out high office in the first place?
Given these political realities, would we not want to limit the power of the state and thus the appeal of public office to such people?

If you want to win election and stay in office, your singular goal is to ensure 50 percent-plus-one support at all costs.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Michael Copeman No Hope in Obama’s Chicago

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

Was it only eight years ago that a newly elected president assured an adoring hometown crowd that crime and injustice would wilt before his enlightened moral authority? As the chalked outlines on too many sidewalks attest, it was another false promise
Every May I head to Chicago for a week (a long story, over a drink perhaps…). Great city. Lovely setting beside Lake Michigan. Wonderful architecture. Sensational shopping. Fantastic museums. Pleasant parks along the lakeshore. Easy to get around, but who would want to, who would dare to, anymore?

This year the murder rate in Chicago is up almost 80% on last year. Yes, 80%. No misprint. And that’s compounding on a rise of 20% from the year before — a trend heading towards a total that may well exceed 800 by the time this year is done. Sure, Chicago has seen years with more murders: 970 in 1974 and 943 in 1992. But this time there’s a remarkable difference to the crime statistics: the clear-up rate for murders has plummeted. Some 70% of murders were solved back in the early 1990s. But last year it was just over 30%. Put it another way: Two out of three Chicago murderers now get away with it. Scot free. Permanently.

All this is happening on Barack Obama’s home turf, just around the corner from where he used to live in the South Side’s Hyde Park, in the second term of his supposedly “transformative” presidency. And in the city where Barack’s buddy and former right-hand man, Rahm Emanuel, is current mayor.

These killings are not mass murders perpetrated by isolated, unhinged loners. This is gang violence writ large, with retribution after retribution after retribution. It is tearing apart the mainly black suburban communities that make up the South and the West of Chicago. But more recently shootings have spread into other areas of Chicago.

Chicago’s police, fearing they will get shot (or videoed shooting someone who later turns out to be unarmed — are intervening less and less, it seems. Instead, they come by later to stretch out the tape, mark out the corpses, pick up the cartridges, photograph stray bullet-holes, and hope that a witness dares to come forward. If Crime Scene Investigation is your buzz, then the Windy City is a sure bet for a long, steady career.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Real Clear Thoughts on BDS “free speech” to Misguided Governments. Barry Shaw

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

The news that the Dutch have followed the Swedes in declaring BDS messaging as free speech leaves me perplexed. Let me see if I’ve got this right.

The Dutch are against BDS, oppose boycott campaigning, oppose their call for the elimination of Israel, but allows their right to do all this. This is more than double Dutch. It’s more like a Dutch pretzel.

“As long as what you say is not illegal you are free to say it,” claims the Dutch Ambassador to Israel, Gilles Beschoor Plug. So let’s see a few of the things that BDS says.

BDS activists claim that they are a non-violent protest movement supporting the Palestinian cause.

Non-violent? Here is what Omar Barghouti, the founder of BDS, has said;

“Palestinians have the right of resistance, including armed resistance.”

We Israelis, from our long history of Palestinian “armed resistance” tend to call it “terrorism.” It includes everything from stabbings, shootings, suicide bombings, rocket attacks on our civilians, the killing of our Olympic athletes and, in the past, plane and ship hijackings.

So much for “non- violence.”

Would, I wonder, the Dutch government tolerate the free speech of an organization that called for non-violent protest against some of their policies and then condoned lethal force as part of their campaign? For how long would the Dutch government protect anti-Dutch BDS rights to free speech if they recruited people to their call for the elimination of The Netherlands as part of their protected free speech rights?

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

‘Dirty Jew!’: Antisemitism Forces French Jews to Leave Suburbs of Paris By Michael van der Galien

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

During the Second World War, French Jews were persecuted like never before. They lived in Paris and its suburbs for centuries, and were always left alone. They truly felt French… or, to be more precise (anyone who knows anything about Paris knows that the inhabitants consider themselves different from the rest of the country), Parisian.

Hitler and his Nazi scum couldn’t have cared less about any of that, however. They considered Jews to be subhuman and sent them to concentration camps where they were systematically slaughtered.

After the Americans, British and Canadians liberated France, Frenchmen discovered what had happened to their Jewish neighbors. They immediately made clear that they would never allow something like that to happen again. “Never again” became an international rallying cry.

Well, with “never” they apparently meant “until 2016”:

Jews who have lived peacefully in the suburbs of Paris are now having to move to other parts of the country or head for Israel to escape anti-Semitism.

When Alain Benhamou walked into his apartment near Paris in July 2015 and saw the words “dirty Jew” scrawled on the wall, he knew it was time to leave.

It was his second such break-in in less than three months and the 71-year-old no longer felt welcome in Bondy, a Parisian suburb he had called home for more than 40 years.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary’s Service as Secretary of State: A Failure of Leadership (and a National Security Disaster) By Kenneth Eliasberg

Posted By on June 1st, 2016

In evaluating Hillary Clinton’s competence, a good place to start is to take a close look at her tour of duty as Secretary of State. Is the U.S. safer and/or held in higher regard around the world as a result of her efforts?

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to note why she got that appointment: Not because of either her acumen or experience. Rather it was Barack Obama extending the olive branch in order to bring a fractured Democratic Party together — fractured because of a very heated and divisive Democrat primary.

That said, even a cursory examination of her service in this position yields up a resoundingly negative answer to that question. As has already been frequently noted, her tour began with her screwing up the Russian reset button, and it ended with her Benghazi dereliction, leading to the death of 4 Americans. What happened in between these bookends, and what are the consequences of those happenings?

Let’s start with the Middle East, that boiling cauldron of infidel hatred. Syria, where, you may recall, President Obama drew a red line (apparently in invisible ink) should Assad use chemical weapons against the insurrectionists, is in chaos — after Syria did use chemical weapons and Obama failed to act on his red line. And now, long after Obama declared the importance of taking down the Assad government, Russia is in the country, providing support for Assad remaining in power (and thereby providing the Russians with a Mediterranean access).