Displaying posts published in

November 2019

NATO Isn’t Dead, but It’s Ailing Macron is right that the alliance needs to adapt to a rapidly changing world. By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-isnt-dead-but-its-ailing-11573516002

NATO is brain-dead. So said French President Emmanuel Macron in an interview published last week.

He’s not wholly wrong. A generation after the collapse of communism, the Western alliance that won the Cold War is adrift and confused. The trans-Atlantic gap is wider than ever, and the fissures between Brexit-minded Britain, Gaullist France and an increasingly powerful Germany seem to deepen and grow from year to year.

Mr. Macron’s description of Europe’s current predicament is brutally frank. With the U.S. losing interest in NATO (a shift Mr. Macron believes predates the Trump administration), Europe can no longer count on American protection as much as it did in the past. Intensifying U.S.-China competition leaves Europe high and dry; neither China nor the U.S. seems particularly interested in what Europe wants or thinks.

In its own neighborhood, Mr. Macron believes Europe is almost helpless before rival powers like Russia and Turkey. Europe’s continuing failure to develop its own Silicon Valley means that the continent risks losing control of its own future. Dependent on American or Chinese tech giants, Europe won’t be able to guarantee the security of its own data or communications. Meanwhile, even as a rigid adherence to outdated ideas about fiscal austerity limits the growth of the eurozone economies, the EU has overstressed the market side of the European project, and paid too little attention to the concept of “community.”

Rocket barrage targets southern city as sirens shatter morning calm

https://worldisraelnews.com/rocket-barrage-targets-southern-city-as-sirens-shatter-morning-calm/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=vwo_notification_1573616227&vwo_powered=1

Israelis woke to terrorist rockets and red alert sirens on Wednesday morning.

A rocket barrage rained down on the city of Netivot in Israel’s south on  Wednesday morning after a relatively quiet night following a bombardment of some 200 rockets on Tuesday.

No injuries are reported.

Also on Wednesday morning, red Alert sirens woke Israelis in Ashkelon, Kibbutz Nahal Oz, the Shefela area and the Gaza envelope. They were the first sirens heard since the last siren sounded at 10:48 p.m. Tuesday.

Israel’s Home Front Command say schools will remain closed on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, the Home Front had ordered all schools closed and warned people working as far north as Tel Aviv to stay near shelter.

Fight Like a Girl Man Being a Girl Peter Smith

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/11/transexual-boxers/

I am not ardent but I take a passing interest in professional boxing. I try to catch it when it is on TV, particularly if it is taking place in America or if it is a fight in the superb and relatively new Muhammad Ali world boxing super series. Women’s boxing has not figured in my interest. However early this year on the undercard was a fight between Katie Taylor from Ireland and a tough looking Latino woman for the lightweight (130-135 lbs) WBO world title.

I feared for the wholesome looking Katie against this toughie. My fear was misplaced. Katie dominated the fight which had to be stopped before the end.

I looked up Katie Taylor and discover how famous and accomplished she is. She is now only one of seven fighters, male and female, to have held a world title under the auspices of all of the boxing organisations – WBA, IBF, WBO and WBC. Earlier this month I saw her step up a weight division and, in a masterly display of boxing, take the WBO world title in the junior welterweight category (135-140 lbs).

Three male boxers hold the world lightweight title (same weight as the women by the way) across all four boxing organisations. I added up their records. They have fought a total of sixty-six fights with only three losses and fifty-one knockout wins. Yes, fifty-one. Boxing is a dangerous sport.

Over recent decades, steps have been taken to reduce the risks. For example, there are fewer rounds than there used to be in championship fights. Finely graduated weight divisions tend to keep larger and smaller boxers apart. Prior medical checks are more stringent. Doctors are on hand during fights. Referees are much more likely to intervene quickly to protect a hurt boxer than in the past.

Yet, despite the precautions, boxers do sometimes still suffer grievous injuries and even death. Let me add a final point of particular pertinence to my unfolding theme. Women fight two-minute rounds compared with three minutes for men. You see, as the minutes tick by tiredness and the chances of getting hurt increase correspondingly.

Take an imaginative leap. Suppose one of these three male boxers, who I referred to above, decides to wear a frock, have a course of estrogen, and fight as a woman. Katie Taylor would have her block knocked off. In fact, she would be put in grave danger. Forget all those steps to reduce risks. The betting would be on whether she would survive for less or more than a minute.

After the Wall, Three Decades of Cultural Despair Mervyn F. Bendle

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/11/after-the-wall-three-decades-of-cultural-despair/The Politburo of the East German Communist Party had made a fatal mistake. It had met in emergency session on the cold evening of November 9, 1989, as the country’s border controls were collapsing and hundreds of thousands of people were in the streets of East Berlin demanding democratic reforms and human rights. Other communist regimes were disintegrating in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania, and similar irreversible processes were underway in the Soviet Union itself. The party chiefs knew that there would be no Soviet support for a brutal crackdown, as Mikhail Gorbachev pursued his campaign to modernize communism. Almost casually there emerged a proposal to lift the ban on East Germans leaving the country. Incredibly, the Politburo grasped at it, hoping to relieve the pressure while aligning itself with the liberalization being promoted by Moscow. Just before 7pm the order was given, and by midnight thousands of Ossis were surging through the checkpoints to be greeted by Wessis waiting with flowers and champagne on the other side.

It was the moment of ‘people power’. Soon German folk, delirious with joy, were dancing on top of the Wall in front of the Brandenburg Gate, where eight months later half a million people joined Roger Waters of Pink Floyd in a massive star-studded concert version of The Wall, culminating in a stirring rendition of “The Tide is Turning” that helped embed the idea of ‘people power’ in popular culture. In one hugely symbolic moment the Cold War effectively came to an end. The dismantling of the Soviet bloc and the foundation of democratic states in its stead had still to unfold, but the Wall was down and the Curtain had parted. It seemed that the world had evaded the abyss of a new dark age and could finally move forward into “the broad, sunlit uplands of freedom” that Churchill had so eloquently evoked 50 years before as he galvanized the besieged liberal democracies after France had capitulated to the other great totalitarian force of the 20th Century.

For one intellectual it was a career-defining moment. In an act of astonishing prescience (or incredible good luck), a young academic, Francis Fukuyama, had submitted an article “The End of History” only months before to the National Interest where it was published in its Summer issue of 1989.  It seemed to relate directly to the epoch-defining events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Fukuyama argued that the world had reached not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such. That is, he believed humanity had reached the end point of its ideological evolution and seen the vindication of Western liberal democracy as the ultimate form of human government. It was an apotheosis: the previously intractable conflicts inherent in global politics had finally been resolved and liberal democracy had emerged victorious over communism and its other opponents in the great war of ideologies. The logic of modern history had led “the greater part of humanity to liberal democracy.”

The Daily Northwestern Apology Is A Harbinger By Emily Jashinsky

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/12/the-daily-northwestern-apology-is-a-harbinger/

“Wait until they get into the real world,” has long been the cliche, uttered knowingly by elders greeted with news of campus madness. It’s time to retire that sentiment. Far from being tempered by the harsh realities of post-college life, graduates are increasingly shaping the so-called real world into a version of their campuses, importing far-left standards into newsrooms and boardrooms.

This is why it’s important to watch what’s happening on campuses. A particularly striking example comes to us this week courtesy of the students at Northwestern University. The staff of The Daily Northwestern issued an apology on Sunday for its coverage of a Nov. 5 speech by Jeff Sessions.

We recognize that we contributed to the harm students experienced, and we wanted to apologize for and address the mistakes that we made that night — along with how we plan to move forward.

One area of our reporting that harmed many students was our photo coverage of the event. Some protesters found photos posted to reporters’ Twitter accounts retraumatizing and invasive. Those photos have since been taken down.

“Ultimately,” they wrote, “The Daily failed to consider our impact in our reporting surrounding Jeff Sessions. We know we hurt students that night, especially those who identify with marginalized groups.”

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono: ‘Believe In Climate Change As Though It’s A Religion’ By Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/12/democratic-sen-mazie-hirono-believe-in-climate-change-as-though-its-a-religion/

Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono thinks Americans ought to fundamentally change the way they think about climate change, arguing that climate change should be thought of as a “religion” rather than a “science.”

“Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion, it’s not a science,” Hirono encouraged.

“Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion and not a science” – Mazie Hirono pic.twitter.com/VkRDGr2rUn

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 12, 2019

The comment came during remarks the senator was delivering in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, making the case that citizens should be more active in leaving one’s comfort zone to be more assertive on left-wing demands.

Hirono’s bizarre line about climate change being framed as a religion over science falls in line with the direction that Democrats have been pushing the issue, ramping up calls to take an aggressive approach to combat environmental pollution.

Many 2020 Democrats chasing the party’s presidential nomination have signed onto the “Green New Deal,” a broad socialist proposal championed by freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York promising to wreak havoc on the global economy pledging “economic security” to those “unwilling to work.”

Ocasio-Cortez has previously compared climate change to World War II, calling for a World War II-scale movement to combat the impending destruction of the planet.

“So we talk about existential threats, the last time we had a really major existential threat to this country was around World War II, and so we’ve been here before and we have a blueprint of doing this before,” Ocasio-Cortez said last year.

A Secret Ballot for Impeachment Would Be a Terrible Idea By Jim Geraghty

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-secret-ballot-for-impeachment-would-be-a-terrible-idea/

Over at Politico, Juleanna Glover, a former adviser for several Republican politicians, floats the idea that President Trump could be removed from office if three Republican senators insist upon a secret ballot for the vote on removal, and stand with Democrats to block any rules for impeachment that would involve on-the-record votes.

It is hard to describe just how terrible an idea this is. It would represent senators trying to avoid accountability for their votes, during an exercise that is supposed to be a legislative effort to hold the president accountable for his actions. This country has never forcibly removed a president from office. For such a consequential and historically important vote, the idea of senators being able to not tell the public how they voted — or to publicly claim they voted one way when they secretly voted the other — is unthinkable.

We all know why some senators would want a secret ballot; plenty of Republican senators who privately can’t stand Trump and who would strongly prefer a President Pence would vote to remove Trump from office if they knew they wouldn’t face punishment in a subsequent GOP primary. In a 75-25 vote in favor of removal, all 53 Republican senators could insist they were among the “no” votes, with no official record to contradict them. (This might apply to relatively Trump-friendly red state Democratic senators like Joe Manchin, too.)

 

If Trump really is an unconstitutional menace who is abusing the power of the presidency for his personal interests, stopping him ought to be worth losing a Senate seat. And if this action isn’t worth losing a Senate seat over, then it’s hard to see how it is worth removing a president. In 1998, this country established the precedent that a president suborning perjury did not warrant removal from office. The bar is set high, and it ought to be set high. If a senator wants to say, “we’re less than a year from a presidential election, let the people decide if this justifies ending Trump’s presidency,” they’ve got that option, too.

Prediction: No Impeachment By Charlie Martin

https://pjmedia.com/trending/prediction-no-impeachment/

I’m afraid I’ve run out of metaphors for the “impeachment inquiry.” “Clown show” — I like clowns. The ad vendors and corporate won’t let me spell out “(excrement) show” without bowdlerization. “Death march,” maybe.

In any case, you know what I’m talking about — the ongoing kangaroo court inquiry in which the main complainant “whistleblower” is anxious to testify until his long-time connections with the people who are pushing the inquiry, as well as his long-time connections with the corrupt inner circle Trump would like Ukraine to investigate became known — at which point he became so scary that you can’t name him on Facebook, as if Eric Ciaramella were Voldemort in the children’s books.

Of course, if Ciaramella was not the whistleblower, his attorney — the one who was bragging that the “#coup” was on in January 2017 — could just say “Eric Ciaramella is not the whistleblower” instead of threatening people with meretricious legal arguments to suppress his name.

Which is “Eric Ciaramella.”

In fact, one of the most curious aspects of the “inquiry” has been just who may, and may not, testify — along with the fact that the fabled Adam Schiff is the only decider of who is called to testify.

Why, it’s almost as if there’s something that worries the Democrats about cross-examination of the guy that was their star witness a couple of weeks ago.

The Wrong Immigration Debate As a new study shows, the question is not whether newcomers prosper in the United States—but whether their generational progeny will keep moving upward. Kay S. Hymowitz

https://www.city-journal.org/intergenerational-mobility-us-immigrants

The New York Times has not been in the habit of publishing heartening stories about the American dream in recent years, but last week, the editors made an exception, with an article recounting the findings of a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, showing that the sons of low-income immigrants are moving up the economic ladder—as they have since the Ellis Island era. After the article appeared, the Times reporter, Emily Badger, tweeted: “There is a lot in this study tweaking talking points in the current immigration debate.” I’d put it differently: there is a lot in this study suggesting that we’ve been having the wrong immigration debate.

The study itself, “Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the U.S. over the Last Two Centuries,” won’t give any final answers to our immigration dilemmas, but it merits attention for its remarkable reach. The three authors, all economic historians, linked the incomes of immigrant fathers and their American-born sons in three generational cohorts—1880, 1910, and 1980—from 20 of the major sending countries. (They didn’t include daughters, whose economic outcomes are trickier to evaluate, given name changes and shifting employment patterns for women.) The sending countries vary dramatically over time. The 1880 group, for example, came mostly from Northern and Western Europe, or more specifically, from Germany, Ireland, and England; the 1910 cohort, meantime, hailed from Southern and Eastern Europe. Finally, the 1980 faction is dominated by exiles from Latin America and Asia. (The authors pass over the period between 1924 and 1965, when immigration was highly restricted.)

For each group, the researchers compared the immigrant pairs with native-born fathers and sons. They found that upward mobility between first- and second-generation immigrants has remained a constant in U.S. history, regardless of the sending country. As the Times put it: “The adult children of poor Mexican and Dominican immigrants in the country legally today achieve about the same relative economic success as children of poor immigrants from Finland or Scotland did a century ago.” In fact, immigrant sons were 3 to 6 percentile points more upwardly mobile than the sons of American fathers.

Adam Schiff’s ‘ham sandwich’: Not an inquiry, just a show By Andrew McCarthy

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469880-adam-schiffs-ham-sandwich-not-an

The most familiar metaphor about criminal investigations is, of course, that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Like all good metaphors, there’s enough exaggeration in it to make a strong impression. It resonates, though, because it conveys the entirely accurate sense that a grand jury is a one-sided affair. We’re wired to believe there are two sides — at least — to every story. That’s why the grand jury rubs us the wrong way.

And that’s why the impeachment show — not inquiry show — that Democrats are running should really rub us the wrong way. 

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and his House Intelligence Committee are taking the show public this week. The inquiry he’s been running is, he claims, analogous to a grand jury investigation: It’s a preliminary investigative stage before the inquiry’s transfer to the Judiciary Committee for the formal consideration of articles of impeachment. 

Grand juries, however, never go public. And that is precisely because they are intentionally one-sided. They are kept secret by law to avoid prejudicing the suspect.

Prejudice is exactly what Schiff is aiming for, however. The point is not impeachment; it is to wound President Trump politically.

To be clear, Schiff’s grand jury analogy is bogus. Congress is not a grand jury. Grand juries are designed to be at least somewhat objective — a body of impartial citizens who, by constitutional mandate, must be satisfied there is probable cause that a crime has been committed before the state is permitted to indict and try a citizen presumed to be innocent. In theory, the grand jury is there to protect the suspect from an overbearing prosecutor. Here, House Democrats are the overbearing prosecutor, not the protective grand jurors.

What is happening in the House is a political exercise. Schiff is a hyper-partisan. With the anti-Trump media leaving his absurd grand jury analogy unchallenged, he exploits it when it is useful, namely, when telling Republicans they will not be permitted to call their witnesses, and he puts the analogy aside when it is not useful, namely, in convening one-sided public hearings.

As a matter of due process, Schiff’s made-for-TV spectacle is a bad joke. That was underscored this past weekend when (a) Democrats gave Republicans a ridiculously short deadline to propose their own witnesses, whom Chairman Schiff reserved the right to veto; (b) Republicans duly proposed witnesses on the issues of Democrats’ collusion with Ukraine in the 2016 election campaign and in possible corruption; and (c) Schiff, as predictably as sunrise, ruled the GOP’s witnesses irrelevant.

In point of fact, the witnesses that Republicans seek to call are entirely relevant to what would be at issue in an impeachment trial, to wit: Is any misconduct by the president alleged in an article of impeachment sufficiently egregious that he should be removed from power?

But, see, a grand jury is not a trial.