Category: ideological culture

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

A Fraction of a Reaction

“A little dab’ll do ya.”

That was from Brylcream, not 23andme.

President Donald Trump has been mocking Senator Warren, relentlessly, for her claims to native American heritage, calling her “Pocahontas.”* Some have dubbed him “racist” for doing this, but his point was plausibly anti-racist. In 1995, Harvard Law School ballyhooed her as its first “first woman of color” hire. 

 Some argue Warren benefited from this racial categorization, but that’s not been shown. Warren has ceased labeling herself Native American and defended her belief that she was of Cherokee or Delaware descent based on family lore as well as her physiognomy (“high cheekbones”). 

“Let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas,” Trump declared during an uproarious routine at a Montana rally back in July, promising the crowd that “when she proclaims that she is of Indian heritage,” he would toss her a DNA kit and offer: “I will give you a million dollars, to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”

Under pressure, Warren took a DNA test.** And (inadvisedly?) made a big deal about it.

Upshot? Six to ten generations ago she may indeed have had one ancestor who was a native American. The post-test squabbles have been mostly embarrassing, but Trump at least had the wit to note the lower end of Warren’s native mix was “1/1024, far less than the average American.”

The “memed” jokes on the Internet have been hilarious.

But who gets the last laugh? While we allow ourselves to be done in by little dabs of trivia, the great crises of our age build ominously. 

At what ratio, though, I don’t know.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* And then apologizing to the real Pocahontas for the comparison.

** The full story of who she went to, and the reliability of her DNA report, is itself bizarre and complicated. See “Did Elizabeth Warren Just Kill Identity Politics?” See also Tim Pool.

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture national politics & policies

Our Leaders’ Favored Anarchy

mob

“In a sane democracy,” I wrote this weekend at Townhall.com, “the side with the most violent nutcases loses.”

Too hopeful?

Independent video journalist Tim Pool made a similar point yesterday, covering Antifa versus Proud Boys fights in New York, as well as Antifa taking over the downtown streets of Portland, Oregon. He cautions those who defend themselves from going too far, for the media will simply make hay of violence against Antifa, ignoring Antifa provocations.

“Antifa are the ones who are showing up to marches that are peaceful and starting the violence — and then everyone complains there’s violence,” Mr. Pool explains.*

Reasonable question: who is encouraging leftist mobs?

Perhaps two former Obama Administration officials, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton. 

“When they go low, we kick them,” Holder said last week. “That’s what the new Democratic Party is about.”

Mrs. Clinton insisted that “you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.”

Michelle Obama provided a civilized correction: “Fear is not a proper motivator,” she said on the Today show. “Do you want them afraid of their neighbors? Do you want them angry? Do you want them vengeful?”

Journalist Sam Francis had a term for what seems to be on the rise: anarcho-tyranny. Government leaders let mob violence go unpunished, but crack down hard on peaceful citizens for infractions of onerous regulations. 

In Portland, this weekend, the mayor applauded a police decision to stand down, letting Antifa take over the streets.

And so the violence ramps up.

As the President likes to say: “Not good.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* “Well, if Antifa doesn’t show up,” Pool went on, “I assure you, the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer will walk in a big circle and then break up and go find beers somewhere.”

PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture property rights too much government

Big Government Apologetics

fragile, socialism

Journalists play different roles.

Too few report. Too many engage in elaborate apologetics for favored causes.

Like big government.

Take this headline: “Venezuela’s Crisis Is Rooted In Oil Prices — and Authoritarianism.”

Guess: reporting, or bending over backwards to save socialism?

The article’s summary of the decline and fall of Venezuela is accurate insofar as it indicates assaults on liberty, including nationalizations and monetary inflation. But neither “oil prices” nor dependence on oil spawned Venezuela’s crisis.

Every industry, city and nation will experience unfavorable markets, now and then. But what’s fundamental is their “antifragility.” And, news to journalists: socialist societies are fragile in ways that freer societies are not.

Suppose Venezuela had had a free market when oil prices dropped so precipitously. People would then have shifted, however grumpily, into enterprises now more profitable than drilling for and distributing oil.

It is no blunder to specialize, to exploit comparative advantages in knowledge, skills or resources, and to engage in local, regional or international trade. It’s fine even if an economy’s production and exports ends up being dominated by just one good. What matters is whether people are free or burdened by government controls. If the latter, how hard does government make it to cope with changing circumstances?

Unhampered market prices supply the information and incentives needed to adapt to all kinds of changes. But if an economy is chronically distorted and calcified by government controls, it becomes much harder to adapt . . . and much harder to survive.

Today’s journalists routinely adapt facts to story, rather than adjust stories to reality. Guys, give up the ideological apologetics. Go back to reporting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people moral hazard

Sexism and Isn’tism

CERN, sexism, man, male, feminism, scandal

Is physics sexist against women?

Professor Alessandro Strumia, of Pisa University, argues to the contrary. At a presentation in Geneva, in front of mainly female physicists, Strumia offered evidence that showed, if anything, that it is men who are being discriminated against. 

Specifically, he compared male and female hirings to male and female scientific citations. Being cited for one’s work is the academic gold standard, the main test scientists have for quality of work. Strumia found a pattern of women being hired over men who had higher citations rates.

Now, Alessandro Strumia is not a social scientist, and this explanation — like any scientific work — is open to criticism.

But was scientific debate the notable reaction to his presentation?

No. He was “suspended with immediate effect” from his job at CERN, Europe’s premiere nuclear science research facility.

Some folks were obviously offended — perhaps most with his characterization of physics as having been “invented and built by men.” That is true but not directly relevant to the issue. His higher-ups at CERN called his statements “unacceptable,” and insisted, perhaps with a slight tone of panic, that the nuclear science research center “always strives to carry out its scientific mission in a peaceful and inclusive environment.” 

The outfit’s official statement did not mention Strumia’s name, but instead referred to “the scientist” and cited his talk for its “attacks on individuals.”

Really? Or merely an attack on an explanation that some individuals found . . . heretical?

Strumia himself offers the perfect characterization of the mini-scandal: “the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside.”

Merely by suspending him and undertaking an “investigation,” has not CERN proved his point?  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Illustration: The Large Hadron Collider/ATLAS at CERN

 

Categories
government transparency ideological culture national politics & policies

Last Week’s Least Credible Answer

Diane Feinstein, Kavenaugh, Supreme Court

So, who was lying, last week, at America’s big show trial — er, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing?

Professor Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

Many Americans took sides. I cannot. Both said believable as well as scarcely believable things, but I’m with that minority who admits not to know what to believe.

Except for one thing: I am pretty sure I know who told the biggest whopper.

Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Democratic senators, especially Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), repeatedly pressured Kavanaugh to himself demand an FBI investigation to clear his name. It all seemed Orwellian: to make the accused insist on an investigation into allegations he had denied. It was also odd, considering, as Kavanaugh reminded his inquisitors, that he had repeatedly accepted any investigation the committee desired.

They just wanted him to demand it.

All of which is nuts, since the Committee possesses subpeona power, and can do an investigation itself.

But the weirdest aspect? The FBI had already checked Kavanaugh’s background, had performed an official investigation. But since Senator Feinstein had not tipped the agency off to Professor Ford’s confidential accusation — had effectively sat on the letter — the FBI hadn’t covered that precise avenue of inquiry.

And then, after the hearings were nearly over . . . the leak. And the bouhaha.

When asked whether she leaked Ford’s epistle, Feinstein said No. When asked if her staff did, she said she . . . hadn’t asked them.

Oh, come on.

Not as believable as either Ford or Kavanaugh.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
ideological culture

The Opposite Party Is Partisan!

When departing Senator Jeff Flake indicated, the other day, that he would vote to place President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court — despite the ugly accusations of Kavanaugh’s youthful sexual misconduct — much re-tweeted actress Alyssa Milano called him a “coward.”

We understand what she means. Because Flake “caved” to pressure from his party* — the GOP — he proved himself “spineless,” in another Twitterer’s terminology.

But the thing is, calling your opponent a coward because he does not do what you want is at least a bit odd. One does not approach a knight defending his castle and call him a coward for not surrendering.

Weird world, eh? Where our enemies are cowards for opposing us!

This is not new. Remember George W. Bush calling the terrorists of 9/11 “faceless cowards”? Bill Maher lost his comedy newschat show at the time because he made the obvious point that people who give their lives to a cause, even if terrible, are anything but cowards.

Human beings are a mixed bag — of virtues and vices. This should be treated as a given . . . for folks on all sides.

In one sense, however, Ms. Milano and many others in the Twitter brigades are not wrong. In politics, today, our biggest challenge is often resisting the besetting sins of our respective tribes.

But the fact that she and her friends “call out” the Senator for his partisan moral failings while rigorously maintaining their partisan ranks does not exactly indicate a moral heroism transcending partisanship.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Some Republicans likely regard Flake as “caving” to pressure from the left, by calling for an FBI investigation before a Senate floor vote on the Kavanaugh nomination. Flake did this after a confrontation with two women who were victims of sexual assault.

PDF for printing