RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/28/against-trump-

Three years ago this month, National Review published its controversial and now infamous entreaty, “Against Trump.” The issue was singularly devoted to making a case against Donald Trump’s then surging primary candidacy; it featured a roster of notable conservative influencers explaining why the brash Manhattan billionaire posed a dire threat to conservatism.

Exactly three years later, the magazine’s online version issued an apology for its early condemnation of Covington Catholic High School students, who, while attending the March for Life in Washington D.C., became the innocent victims of a social media ambush orchestrated and executed by the Left. Some conservative commentators who had contributed to the “Against Trump” issue quietly deleted their tweets criticizing the teens, without apology.

The irony surrounding the coincidence of the dates of those two circumstances might be considered either karma, comeuppance, or both. And it once again highlighted why Donald Trump is in the White House and Jeb Bush isn’t, and why Trump—and none of the self-proclaimed conservatives who opined in the pages of National Review three years ago—now is considered the standard bearer of American conservatism. When the Left attacks, the Right caves.

When Christian teenagers attending an event to support a cause that represents the heart of the conservative movement needed immediate and unflinching protection from a leftist mob, the self-appointed guardians of conservatism failed. Their mockery of “He Fights!” only exposes how they will not—or when they do fight they often pick the wrong battles, and how they find the whole business of political warfare beneath them—unless, of course, they can punch down at a target on their own side.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is a direct quote from that “Against Trump” issue: “[Trump’s] obsession is with ‘winning,’ regardless of the means—a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/the_potomac_twostep_will_no_one_stand_up_to_the_corruption_in_the_fbi_doj_and_cia.html

For nearly ten years now, Americans who have been paying attention have known that our government has become corrupt, that its premier institutions were weaponized by the Obama administration to the point that we have become something of a police state or banana republic. This is not to say there was no corruption previous to Obama. As Sidney Powell addresses in her book License to Lie, the current special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his amoral, ruthless right-hand man, Andrew Weismann, had already been practicing their prosecutions of personal destruction for decades. In the 1980s, Mueller sent four men to prison who he knew were innocent. He did it to protect a confidential informant. Two of them died in prison. The lawsuits filed cost taxpayers $100M. That trial was connected to the murderous mafia hit man Whitey Bulger, who was finally caught after sixteen years. He died in prison in 2018. Was he murdered to protect Mueller?

There was the total destruction of Enron, and then came the obliteration of Enron’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen. Those prosecutions were run much as Mueller and Weismann are running their current job assignment. Mueller successfully ruined both companies, costing thousands of people their jobs and sending nonviolent people to prison, sometimes to solitary confinement like what he did with Paul Manafort. Fortunately, but too little, too late, nearly all of the guilty verdicts they managed to elicit from juries were overturned by the Supreme Court in both cases.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/
overturning unpopular Supreme Court decisions.

These are dangerous times: The percentage of people who say it is “essential” to live in a liberal democracy is plummeting, everywhere from the United States to the Netherlands. Support for autocratic alternatives to democracy is especially high among young people. In 1788, Madison wrote that the best argument for adopting a Bill of Rights would be its influence on public opinion. As “the political truths” declared in the Bill of Rights “become incorporated with the national sentiment,” he concluded, they would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.” Today, passion has gotten the better of us. The preservation of the republic urgently requires imparting constitutional principles to a new generation and reviving Madisonian reason in an impetuous world.

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a series that attempts to answer the question: Is democracy dying?

James Madison traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 with Athens on his mind. He had spent the year before the Constitutional Convention reading two trunkfuls of books on the history of failed democracies, sent to him from Paris by Thomas Jefferson. Madison was determined, in drafting the Constitution, to avoid the fate of those “ancient and modern confederacies,” which he believed had succumbed to rule by demagogues and mobs.

Madison’s reading convinced him that direct democracies—such as the assembly in Athens, where 6,000 citizens were required for a quorum—unleashed populist passions that overcame the cool, deliberative reason prized above all by Enlightenment thinkers. “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason,” he argued in The Federalist Papers, the essays he wrote (along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay) to build support for the ratification of the Constitution. “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America. After the Revolutionary War, he had observed in Massachusetts “a rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property.” That populist rage had led to Shays’s Rebellion, which pitted a band of debtors against their creditors.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/government-shutdown-reveals-much-of-federal-government-irrelevant/

So much of government in Washington is nonessential.

One of the lessons of the Trump–Pelosi standoff on border security is that government shutdowns are a foolish way to resolve partisan disputes.

But the other lesson may be far more important. The partial shutdown, with agencies such as the Transportation, Agriculture, and State Departments, as well as other independent agencies, closed for business, demonstrated how irrelevant so much of our $4 trillion government is to the everyday lives of Americans.

As I traveled over the last several weeks to Florida, California, and many states in between, and asked people what they thought of the shutdown, many said they didn’t even know the government was shut down for more than a month. Their everyday lives were disrupted or inconvenienced only, if at all, in a trivial way. It turns out there are countless Americans who don’t watch CNN or MSNBC and so didn’t learn about the supposed horrors of agency closures.

This was a particularly painless shutdown for the average taxpayer because the essential activities of government were mostly unaffected. Seniors got their social-security checks. The military was protecting us. We got through the airports with minimal delays — until the last week when some TSA officials and air-traffic controllers weren’t on the job.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/28/35-days-without-eeoc-illustrate-shut-forever/

On a quiet evening in 2016, Jose the night supervisor was tickled by a funny animal meme. He printed the picture and taped it to the office fridge. The next morning, when Jackie the day supervisor arrived, she took one look and proclaimed the picture “racist.”

Coworkers from a variety of ethnic backgrounds argued over whether the meme had some hidden racial meaning. Certainly, Jose was horrified to discover that he had offended anyone. After a quick consultation with Human Resources, the picture was tossed, and everyone went back to work.

Just kidding! Jackie decided to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Her claim: unlawful, hostile work environment and harassment, based on an ambiguous picture posted for less than 24 hours. Meanwhile, the ordeal for my client—the company employing Jose, Jackie, and their co-workers—continues to this day.
The Mission of the EEOC

More than half a century ago, as part of his Great Society speech President Lyndon Johnson pledged to end racial injustice. Shortly afterwards, Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, creating the EEOC. The EEOC is tasked with enforcing federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination. Officially protected categories include race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, arguably gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, and genetic information. The EEOC also protects employees who make complaints about unlawful discrimination.

https://www.city-journal.org/covington-nick-sandmann-masculinity

For centuries, people have stared at the Mona Lisa, pondering, quizzical, trying to make sense of the expression on her face. In the last few days, millions of people around the world have similarly scrutinized the image of Nick Sandmann, a now-famous junior at Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, as he encountered Nathan Phillips in front of the Lincoln Memorial on January 18.

The story that first went around was that Sandmann and his fellow students, who had attended the March for Life last Friday and were waiting for their bus back home, had encircled, threatened, and insulted Phillips, a Native American activist who had served in the military.

The Covington students, all boys, many of them wearing “Make America Great Again” caps, were instantly demonized. But video evidence later showed that the boys were innocent—quite remarkably and impressively innocent, in fact. Over the course of more than an hour, they were confronted, first, by a fanatical group of religious bigots, the Black Hebrew Israelites (who claim to be the real Jews), who pelted them with racist and homophobic abuse, to which the Kentucky boys, quite admirably, refused to reply; and, second, by Phillips, who, accompanied by a handful of hangers-on, got in their faces, chanting, banging a drum, and telling them to go back to Europe because they had no business in America, which belonged to Native Americans. As Phillips marched through the crowd of boys, all parted except for Sandmann, who silently met Phillips’s gaze.

Reactions to Sandmann’s expression poured out from every corner. Many people described him as sneering. Rosie O’Donnell was one of several who called him “smug.” Since he is white, his expression was interpreted, by the kind of people who are determined to interpret such things in such ways, as the condescending reaction of a privileged young straight white male toward a much older representative of a minority group, who was supposedly carrying out a sacred ritual.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/26/a-better-guide

Some expert in Bayesian probability ought to come up with an algorithm that would enable us to determine which of the multifarious daily outrages are going to catch on and, as the internet has taught us to say, “go viral.” Remember that hysterical (I do not mean “funny”) Yale student who was videoed screaming at the (as the title then was) master of her college at Yale because his wife had suggested the college had no business policing students’ Halloween costumes? That was an instant sensation and (I am happy to say) helped popularize the term “crybullies,” meaning the timid yet vicious creatures who, nurturing a hyperactive sense of grievance, seek to weaponize their coveted if generally make-believe status as victims.

But why that episode? Every day, or at least every week or two, there are equally outrageous examples of moralistic hysteria that, even if they are widely reported, die a quiet death as the news cycle buries every yesterday beneath the importunate clamoring of now, now, now . . .

I do not have an answer to this question. I merely note the puzzling fact and repeat my wish for the haruspex who can plumb the entrails of this beast and tell us if it is slouching towards notoriety.

Kavanaughesque In Its Viciousness
When I wrote about the now-infamous Covington Boys incident last Sunday, I had no idea that it would become the most sensational story of the week. I wrote before seeing the longer video of the incident but, even so, thought that the cataract of abuse that the boys were subjected to was way over the top. I acknowledged, “of all human passions, the passion of moral self-righteousness is the most delicious,” but went on to observe that “the problem is, the people who are the objects of our indignation often present a more complicated reality than we first assume.”

So, of course, it turned out to be with the boys from Covington Catholic. The boys did not approach or taunt the drum-beating fake-Vietnam-vet creep of an Indian activist Nathan Phillips. On the contrary, he waded in among them, obnoxiously taunting them while my new favorite group of wackos, the Black Hebrew Israelites, hurled a variety of racist and sexual slurs at the high school students as they waited for a bus to whisk them back to Kentucky after their participation in the annual pro-life March for Life.

https://quillette.com/2019/01/25/how-real-is-systemic

John Staddon is a James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Professor of Biology, Emeritus, at Duke University.

Racist attitudes of whites towards blacks have long become socially unacceptable in America, although the reverse, racism of a minority directed at the white majority, is still tolerated or even encouraged. However, statistical racial disparities persist. African Americans, as a population, continue to suffer income, crime and incarceration rate, health, housing and family-structure deficits by comparison with the white population.

These disparities cannot easily be attributed to racist behavior by whites. The disparities have either increased or remained the same while individual racist behavior has declined. What then is the cause of these disparities? There are two possibilities: causes within individuals, what I have elsewhere called endogenous causes; or external, exogenous causes.

Endogenous Causes of Black-White Disparities

Endogenous causes were in fact the first ones to be studied, with unfortunate results. Bigots stigmatized the entire “black race” as inferior because of lower average scores on, for example, IQ tests. Blacks’ under-performance in terms of status, health, incomes, etc. was then comfortably attributed to their alleged built-in inadequacy.

The usual presumption was that IQ is fixed at birth, that it is the most important factor in life success and that it cannot be altered by later experience. None of these is true; although the fixity-of-IQ view seemed to be supported by several studies showing relatively high (statistical) heritability for IQ. But heritable is not the same as fixed: high statistical heritability for a behavioral trait does not imply that it is fixed at birth and independent of the rearing environment. Language is the most obvious counter-example. It is a learned behavior that also has high heritability. Language is 100 percent learned and 100 percent heritable—kids learn the language of their parents.

The only reason we know that language is not a sort of instinct is the “natural experiments” provided by adoption. Despite the high heritability of language, adopted infants learn the language of their adoptive, not biological, parents. It follows that high heritability does not mean genetic determinism. Statistical heritability depends on rearing environment as well as genetics.

What kind of experiment would be needed to prove that intelligence, which is also (statistically) heritable, is in fact genetically determined? What would it take to show that there are irreducible average-IQ differences between races: that no matter how rich the environment, blacks and whites would still have differing average IQ, leaving genes as the only cause? Only a very elaborate, unethical, and in practice un-doable, experiment could do it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/social-justice-rhetoric-all-purpose-excuse-democrats/For a new generation of Democrats, what the phrase denotes is indistinguishable from retribution.

‘No other Congress has ever looked like this,” declared a CNN dispatch on the makeup of the 116th Congress. With such a diverse group of new legislators, that’s undoubtedly true. More importantly, though, no Congress has ever thought like this. As a new generation of Democrats assumes power, they’re bringing their ideas about what constitutes “social justice” with them.

It is particularly instructive to examine how this class of legislators defines social justice. When Representative Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) took the oath of office, for example, she initially planned on doing so on Thomas Jefferson’s 1734 translation of the Qur’an. But the Palestinian-American legislator reserved the right to use her own copy of the Qur’an. “Why uplift someone else?” she told the Detroit Free Press. “It’s starting a new era in social justice.” Why “uplift” Thomas Jefferson, indeed?

This self-referential attitude is a feature of the modern social-justice movement, and it helps to explain why it is so focused on engineering oppressive reversals of fortune.

Before coming to Congress, Tlaib told The Intercept that she is a proud supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to stigmatize activities that legitimize the state of Israel. To her, BDS brings attention to “issues like the racism and the international human-rights violations by Israel right now.” Representative Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) shares Tlaib’s proclivities. “I have always had a very social-justice-bent approach to everything that I do in my life,” Omar told ABC News.

On their way into federal office, these two lawmakers brought Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour along with them. Sarsour was on hand in the Capitol on their first day in office, even though she was at the center of an anti-Semitism scandal not two months ago — a scandal rooted in the social-justice movement’s obsession with crafting racial and demographic pecking orders.

https://quillette.com/2019/01/24/the-dangers-of

In 1993, then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan published an essay entitled “Defining Deviancy Down,” in which he argued that understanding the shift towards more permissive attitudes regarding crime and violence is crucial to their reduction. Specifically, he asserted that the redefinition of norms around deviant behavior (or “defining deviancy down”) had collectively shaped society in unintended ways, resulting in a desensitization to what might have once been considered shocking. By way of illustration, Moynihan referenced the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago—the notorious gangland execution of seven men committed during the prohibition era. He reminded his readers that those killings had elicited universal public outrage, and then contrasted that reaction with a contemporary example: “On the morning after the close of the [1992] Democratic National Convention in New York City in July,” he wrote, a headline reported “3 Slain in Bronx Apartment, but a Baby is Saved…A mother’s last act was to hide her little girl under the bed.” These were also execution-style killings, but they were greeted with only a barely discernible nod of dismay. In the six decades between 1929 and 1992, a transformation had occurred in the levels of violence and criminal behavior that the public seemed willing to accept.

The idea of defining deviancy down has attracted renewed attention from commentators in the Trump era. In recent years, Moynihan’s analysis has been used to understand how Trump’s impact on the culture has increased the acceptability of previously taboo language, attitudes, and behaviors. In November 2015, Jonathan Capehart wrote an article for the Washington Post entitled “How Trump is ‘defining deviancy down’ in presidential politics.” Capehart argued that, “As the 2016 Republican presidential contest drags on, [Moynihan’s] diagnosis fit politics in general and the campaign of Donald Trump in particular. Just when you thought the Big Apple billionaire couldn’t sink any lower, he does. He gleefully dances through the nativist, racist, misogynistic slop as if he were Gene Kelly in Singing in the Rain. And to make matters worse, Trump is rewarded for it.” In a similar vein, Albert Hunt wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg in May 2017 entitled, “The Age of Trump is ‘Defining Deviancy Down’: When the president seems inept or corrupt, we shrug. If he ever fumbles through adequately, he is praised.”