Mike Moon’s Missouri Campus Intellectual Diversity Act By Stanley Kurtz

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mike-moons-missouri-campus-intellectual-diversity-act/

The current atmosphere of crisis and conflict on America’s college campuses was kicked off by the troubles at the University of Missouri–Columbia (“Mizzou”) during the 2015–2016 academic year. Many will remember the infamous video of Professor Melissa Click calling for “some muscle” to prevent journalists from covering the protests, a harbinger of the campus free-speech crisis. In the wake of Mizzou’s 2015 debacle, university enrollment cratered, with a modest recovery beginning only recently.

It is in the interest of the citizens of Missouri to find a long-term solution to this problem — a way to encourage all sides on our divided college campuses to freely to speak their minds. We need to regularize civil debate over the issues that divide us. If students were accustomed to hosting and hearing civil debates over issues like immigration, abortion, religious liberty, health insurance, and criminal-justice reform, the effect would be to normalize disagreement and lower the emotional temperature on campus.

By introducing House Bill No. 2177, the Missouri Campus Intellectual Diversity Act, Representative Mike Moon aims to do exactly that. Moon’s bill is modeled on a proposal I made here at NRO last year. (See that proposal for a detailed explanation of the concept.) This proposal has been endorsed by the National Association of Scholars, and by Mark Bauerlein at Minding the Campus. Essentially, Moon’s bill instructs the state university system to set up a series of debates, public forums, and individual lectures that will explore our most hotly debated public-policy issues from competing perspectives. If experts willing and able to present and defend both sides of a given controversy are in short supply on campus, outside speakers could be invited in. Videos of public-policy debates arranged by the university would be made available to the public. Moon’s bill also instructs universities to keep detailed event calendars. This will provide a snapshot, so to speak, of the state of intellectual diversity on campus, at least with regard to public-policy events.

Bolton and the First Law of Leaks By Charlie Martin

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bolton-and-the-first-law-of-leaks/

I’d guess that the most common kind of news article out of Washington would be an article reporting something breathless that was leaked to the reporter by an anonymous source. This is usually gussied up with frills and flounces, like “a source close to the Administration” or “a source with knowledge of the situation”.

I’m not one to say that all leaks should be eliminated, even if they could be eliminated. Which they can’t. Leaks can serve a good purpose — there are a lot of times a leak makes public some real issue. But we always should keep in mind the First Law of Leaks:

Every leak is being leaked to promote the agenda of the leaker, and is being shaped to the leaker’s advantage.

So once you see something that’s been leaked, you should ask yourself five four questions:

How is it being reported?
Whose agenda does the leak serve?
How surprising is it?
So?

That last might be called the “Andrew Breitbart Answer.” Not too long before he died, Andrew made the point that often the right answer to the accusations of the left was “So?” or “So what?” Craig Biddle wrote excellently on Andrew’s question back in 2012. He has a lot more to say about it, but his central point is that “So?” directs the discussion to fundamental issues.

The recent leaks purported to be from John Bolton’s upcoming books — and, for that matter, Bolton’s book itself — have been just begging for someone to ask these questions, so let’s.

How is the leak being reported?

What Bloomberg’s Money Can Buy By Lance Trover

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/05/what_bloombergs_money_can_buy__142322.html

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s big-spending foray into the presidential race is getting noticed by millions of Americans. You can’t miss his seemingly ubiquitous television advertising, especially in states unaccustomed to seeing campaign commercials in primary season.

But a tiny, yet knowing, subsection of the public was captivated for an entirely different reason just days before Bloomberg spent $10 million to advertise during the Super Bowl. His year-end campaign finance report showed a free-spending organization that was met with a mix of disbelief and jealousy by political operatives throughout the country.

Most seasoned campaign workers and consultants can regale you with tales of boot-strapped campaigns, the proverbial uphill-both-ways-to-school story. Tales of campaign workers sleeping in the office and living off donated candy and booze are the stuff of lore.

While it may sound quaint in an era of super PACs and self-funders, the vast majority of campaigns today are still largely run on shoestring budgets. Ten grand for sushi you say? How about 10 bucks for pizza and we all chip in for the beer? An apartment in Midtown? How do you feel about staying in the basement of the candidate’s house? 

Don’t get me wrong — this is not passing judgment on a candidate or anyone working for wealthy candidates willing to spend their own money to get elected. As someone who toiled on several political campaigns, I’ve had the good fortune of experiencing both the well-funded and the not-so-well-funded.

Nancy Pelosi should resign by Jonathan Turley

The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. While it has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address, Pelosi appeared intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces [texting, speaking, mouthing epithets, shuffling papers, nodding, then shaking her head as if she were conducting a speech, tilting her head up and down, moving her microphone, raising her papers high, rearranging and fluttering them repeatedly, and her signature lip-smacking] and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a [government property] copy of his address [in violation of Federal law].

Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum, and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.

What followed was an utter disgrace. First, Pelosi dropped the traditional greeting before the start of the address, “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.” Instead, she simply announced, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.” It was extremely petty and profoundly inappropriate. Putting aside the fact that this is not her tradition, but that of the House, it is no excuse to note that the president was impeached.

Israel, Pelosi, & Moral Equivalency a la the Main Stream Media by Gerald A. Honigman

No sooner had Nancy Pelosi disrespected both the office of the President and the American people, the spin doctor mainstream media allies of the Democrat Party began equating President Trump’s not accepting Speaker of the House Pelosi’s hand shake to Pelosi ripping up her copy of the State of the Union Address before numerous millions of people watching on television around the world

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-snubbed-her-handshake-she-tore-up-his-speech-trump-pelosi-drama-on-full-display-at-state-of-the-union/ar-BBZEF8L?li=BBnb7Kz .

While the American State Department and many other folks are famous for such alleged moral equivalency claims as well, it’s the media of various sorts which is of concern right now https://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/6/article38.htm.

Whatever the President’s real or alleged shortcomings may be, any reasonable observer cannot help but notice that the attempt to attack and get rid of Donald J. Trump began the day the Clinton team, whose Foundation has been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars from often questionable and controversial sources (including Russian, Arab, and Ukrainian), lost the election in 2016. Besides Hillary, Slick Willy was chomping at the bit to be the First Dude back in the White House.

MY SAY: #CLEAN THE HOUSE

In their zeal to destroy our President, the Dem-wits of Congress have ignored:
Coronavirus and the threat of epidemic; Real immigration reform;Control of our northern and southern borders; Foreign policy other than knee-jerk opposition to the killing of Soleimani and the Mid-East Peace Plan ;Homeland Security- the threat of homegrown terrorism ;Infrastructure- Repair of bridges, tunnels and highways that could employ thousands ;Real Election Reform- as evidenced by the chaos in Iowa
Elections are coming. Clean the House and throw the rascals out…..rsk

Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address was nothing less than magnificent His major speeches will go down as among the most eloquent and important in the nation’s history Roger Kimball

https://spectator.us/trump-state-union-address-touching-moments/

One of the many things that F. Scott Fitzgerald said that sound good but aren’t true is this: ‘There are no second acts in American lives.’ Consider the life of Donald Trump. Five years ago he was a dubious real estate developer and professional celebrity. Now he is not only president of the United States, but he is, three years into his first term, the most ostentatiously successful president in memory. Donald Trump is a walking refutation of what is perhaps Fitzgerald’s second most quoted line.

Possibly Fitzgerald’s first most quoted line is this: ‘The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.’ That isn’t true, either. On the contrary, espousing or embodying contradictory ideas is generally a mark of pedestrian intelligence, on the one hand, and defective character on the other. In this context, uncharitable people might be inclined to adduce people like Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell (remember him?). They spout certain platitudes about the importance of Constitution, the rule of law, etc., but then do things that utterly betray their fine sounding sentiments.

Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address tonight brought both of Fitzgerald’s sayings to mind. The announced theme of the evening was ‘the great American comeback’. And the president indulged in a litany of what that comeback has encompassed. But as in his 2018 and 2019 State of the Union addresses, a major theme of his remarks was unity: the importance of working across the aisle to achieve what is good for the whole country, not just one party. In 2018, in a column called ‘Trump restores the We‘, I wrote that a major theme of the evening was the call to put aside ‘the partisan passions that divide us in order to go forward as a people united in the goal of making a better America’.

In 2019, the president sounded a similar note. The choice before us, he said, was between the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution, on the one hand, and cooperation, compromise, and the common good, on the other. ‘Victory,’ he said ‘is not winning for our party. Victory is winning for our country.’

A Threat to Humanity Viral epidemics, like coronavirus, represent a danger far more real than climate change. Guy Sorman

https://www.city-journal.org/viral-epidemics-coronavirus

Over the past century, as globalization accelerated, viral epidemics have become a serious threat to humanity. In 1918, the Spanish flu killed about 50 million people around the world. The average age of victims was 20, and many died within a day. A comparable flu struck Mexico in 2009, infecting at least 1 million victims. This time, the average victim age was 40. Such flus or pneumonias, different from ordinary seasonal flus, kill the young rather than the elderly. Youth lack natural immunity because of their limited exposure to viruses.

These epidemics are becoming recurrent, too, and emerging more quickly. They’re especially prevalent in China, which has experienced remarkable growth since the turn of the century. In 2003, a pneumonia epidemic, SARS, infected thousands in China before reaching Canada and the United States. At the time, the SARS story paralyzed media, but even today, we don’t know how many people succumbed to the virus, because Chinese authorities hid the evidence.

Now China’s latest epidemic, the coronavirus, is causing anxiety worldwide while remaining largely a mystery. Coronavirus typically spreads between animals and humans, the illness leaping from one to the other, mutating and becoming deadlier as it evolves. The latest mutation originated somewhere in China’s Wuhan region, home to vast chicken and pig farms, where dubious hygienic conditions prevail amid a large population. But now the virus has traveled, as did previous epidemics. The Spanish Flu, for example, likely started on a U.S. chicken farm and then traveled by ship. It took one infected sailor, going from port to port, to create a global pandemic. But the risk is even greater today, with airline traffic making the globalization of a virus almost immediate.  

When a new virus emerges, it takes months to create a vaccine for treatment. In the interim, only time and isolation can manage infection rates. Nor is there any remedy other than medicines that ease symptoms. The highly respected French epidemiologist Robert Sebag told me that, judging from past experience, it’s conceivable that up to 15 percent of those who contract the Wuhan virus could die. Chinese officials, though conceding that the virus is highly contagious (and more so than SARS), maintain that the more likely figure is 3.5 percent. This is, of course, largely guesswork for the time being. The only effective measure against the virus at this point is to isolate the sick to control contagion. But the source remains unknown, making management difficult; and not enough Chinese doctors exist—and not all are competent—to contain an illness spreading from city markets to the countryside.

Dem Women in White Sit While Trump Announces Lowest Minority Unemployment Numbers EVER By Megan Fox

https://pjmedia.com/trending/white-women-draped-in-white-sit-while-trump-announces-lowest-minority-unemployment-numbers-ever/

Well, this is weird. Not only are the Democrats sheathing themselves in their favorite historic color for intimidating folks at the State of the Union address, but they all refused to stand while President Trump announced the lowest unemployment numbers for black and Hispanic people in the history of the country.

You have to wonder what message they’re trying to send as they sit there completely unimpressed that more minority people are working than ever before. We know you hate the president, but don’t you like Americans who have jobs? It seems like one of those things that would be easy to cheer. But Trump Derangement Syndrome, so whatever. Minority jobs come second to that. I’m surprised they didn’t wear black for mourning the impeachment acquittal that is coming in the morning.

Dems claim they’re in white because something, something, suffragettes.

Can Muslim Terrorists be Deradicalized? – Part I by Denis MacEoin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15512/muslim-terrorists-deradicalized

“What we found [in prisons] was so shockingly bad that I had to agree to the language in the original report being toned down. With hindsight, I’m not sure that was the right decision.” — Ian Acheson, British expert on prisons.

“There were serious deficiencies in almost every aspect of the management of terrorist offenders… Frontline prison staff were vulnerable to attack and were ill-equipped to counter hateful extremism on prison landings for fear of being accused of racism. Prison imams did not possess the tools, and sometimes the will, to combat Islamist ideology. The prison service’s intelligence-gathering system was hopelessly fractured and ineffectual.” — Ian Acheson, “London Bridge attack: I told ministers we were treating terrorist prisoners with jaw-dropping naivety. Did they listen?”, London Times, December 1, 2019.

“Obedience is achieved by violence and intimidation carried out by members of the group known as enforcers. ‘Those who had committed terrorist crimes often held more senior roles in the gang,’ the study found, ‘facilitated by the respect some younger prisoners gave them.’ The study found that terrorist groups such as al-Qaida did not see prison as an obstacle. Quite the opposite, they viewed it as an opportunity to organize and expand.” — Patrick Dunleavy, former Deputy Inspector General for New York State Department of Corrections, June 18, 2019.

On Friday November 29, 2019, an Islamist terror attack took place in London. Two young people, both recent Cambridge University graduates, Jack Merritt (25) and Saskia Jones (23), were stabbed and killed by a single attacker. It was a terrible and unnecessary loss of life.

The special irony about Jack and Saskia’s deaths is that they (and a colleague) had been involved with Cambridge University’s Learning Together prison-rehabilitation program, similar to the US version known as Inside-Out, both of which bring prison inmates together with students to learn together. The British programme is run by Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology, from which both Merritt and Jones had received M.Phils in criminology.

On that Friday, the fifth anniversary of the program, they were attending a conference on offender rehabilitation. The event, dedicated to work on reintegrating prisoners after their release, took place in the stately Fishmongers’ Hall at the north end of London Bridge. It was attended by a mix of academics, students, graduates and former prisoners, some with tags.