What I find most interesting though is this: "Two years in the making..."
What I find most interesting though is this: "Two years in the making..."
The person who leaked military documents and was convicted on 17 charges, including five counts of espionage and theft? Manning's sentence was eventually commuted by Obama. And so:
<< Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell on Thursday announced his resignation as a senior fellow at Harvard after the university named U.S. Army soldier-turned-convicted felon Chelsea Manning a visiting fellow.
Manning will take on the role at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, the school said on its website >>
I have checked the Harvard website, Manning's name is indeed posted there. Is Harvard an American or an anti-American university?
Here is my recollection of how the current discussions regarding the illegal immigration came to the forefront of the public attention. It was caused by a certain event that happened in 1995:
<< In a classic urban nightmare, about a dozen gang members surrounded "a car full of children" that took a wrong turn onto a graffiti-marred dead-end street in the dark early Sunday, blocked the vehicle as the driver tried frantically to escape, and then opened fire on the passengers.
A 3-year-old girl was killed, Los Angeles police said. Her 2-year-old brother, who was sitting in an infant car seat, and the car's driver were both wounded in the ambush in the gang-ridden Cypress Park neighborhood they accidentally strayed into as they were returning from a barbecue.
Stephanie Kuhen was hit in the head and mortally wounded in the barrage from handguns. Her brother Joseph, 2, was struck in the foot. The driver, Timothy Stone, 25, was shot in the back. Stephanie's mother, Robynn, 26, and her brother Christopher, 5, and uncle, David Dalton, 22, were unhurt.
No arrests had been made in what police are calling a completely unprovoked ambush shooting by Latino gang members in an area between railroad tracks and the hills of Mt. Washington in northeast Los Angeles. >>
There were other stories at about the same time, such as this one, described by the late Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington in his book "Who Are We?" (also with a reference to LA Times):
<< At a Gold Cup soccer game between Mexico and the United States in February 1998, the 91,255 fans were immersed in a "sea of red, white, and green flags"; they booed when "The Star-Spangled Banner" was played; they "pelted" the U.S. players "with debris and cups of what might have been water, beer or worse"; and they attacked with "fruit and cups of beer" a few fans who tried to to raise an American flag. This game took place not in Mexico City but in Los Angeles. "Something's wrong when I can't even raise an American flag in my own country," a U.S. fan commented, as he ducked a lemon going by his head. "Playing in Los Angeles is not a home game for the United States," a Los Angeles Times reporter agreed. >>
Back then, the attention of the public was caused by a realization that their American cities are no longer as American or safe as they used to be, and that the illegal immigration plays a significant role in this change. And now it is all very different - now we are supposed to back over backwards to make sure we do not inconvenience illegal aliens in any way and that we do not hurt their sensitivities. How did this shift happen - and why? Any ideas? The previous round of attention to the illegal immigration culminated in the so called "Operation Wetback," that was an extremely effective mass deportation action.
It also stands as a great illustration to the mantra about the alleged impossibility of deporting significant numbers of illegals being plain wrong. The current round leads to the both major parties racing each other to amnesting and legalizing as many illegals as possible. No country can survive like this.
<< A monument commemorating “Star-Spangled Banner” author Francis Scott Key was vandalized in downtown Baltimore, officials said Wednesday. Photographs show the monument, at 1200 N. Eutaw St., covered with red paint and the words “racist anthem” written in black....
Key, a Maryland native who wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner” after the Battle of Baltimore during the War of 1812, died in 1843 — almost two decades before the Civil War began — and was not a Confederate. >>
Also, note this:
<< McCarthy [a spokesman for Baltimore Mayor Catherine E. Pugh (D)] said there were no plans to remove the Key statue.
“Those conversations may take place in the future, but they’re certainly not part of any conversations taking place in the city of Baltimore right now,” he said. >>
Do you still think it is just about the Confederacy?
A related story:
<< One of the things that make Reed [College] academically special is Humanities 110, its required freshman lecture course in Western civilization. Taught by a team of experts on different authors and periods, and with a syllabus that includes Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Thucydides, Plato, Virgil, Ovid, the Book of the Dead, and parts of the Bible, it's the kind of course that students at many another high-profile college shut down a couple of decades ago.
In 1987, Jesse Jackson led hundreds of Stanford students in the chant: “Hey hey, ho ho, Western civ has got to go.” Two years later, Stanford's Western Culture course was replaced with a more “inclusive” program. But somehow the Western civ course at Reed survived.
That may change soon. In an article published last fall in the college magazine, Reed alumus Chris Lydgate recalled how much he'd loved the course when he took it three decades ago, but noted that students were now tagging it as “an example of institutional racism” that “conveys the surreptitious message that white men are the authentic source of thought and civilization.”
Claiming that the works taught in the course have played a role “in colonialism, racism, and slavery,” these students were demanding that the course be revised to “include a history of the Western canon as racist and anti-black.” >>
What can I say? Yes, it is hard to brainwash people into the doctrine of "multiculturalism" and yet let them see all the contributions made by the "majority culture", especially if these contributions are viewed in the positive light.
During the few recent years, Confederate statues have been removed (in lawful procedures and otherwise), names of places have been changed. A couple of years ago, Memphis city council voted to remove not only a monument but also a couple of graves. And now "Gone with the Wind" screenings have been pulled because of being "insensitive".
My big question to you is this: why now?
First of all, just to get this out of the way. No, I do NOT see the American Civil War as a war of good (the North) against evil (the South). There is much to say about this, including on the issue of slavery and race relations in general, but I am not going to do it in this post. I am just making a point that the conflict between the North and the South was not at all a simple matter to judge, while I leave the discussion of merits and problems of the both sides to another day.
Well, perhaps I should mention just one fact, as a brief illustration. It is the Grant's Order No. 11 that stated that: “The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department… are hereby expelled from [Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi] within 24 hours.” But let us not digress.
What is incontrovertible is that the war, while starting in a somewhat mild way, turned quite barbaric eventually. It was a total war, and the Grant and Sherman won it in a very brutal way. Do you realize, for instance, that the city of Atlanta was burned _after_ it had already been captured by the northern troops? The residents were ordered out, and the city set on fire. All in all, the South was brutalized and suppressed, and an occupational military force (officially called by this name) was posted in the southern states for years. The so called reconstruction was a clear imposition of the way of life of the conquering country upon the defeated land.
The result was quite natural. The North came to be hated by nearly half of the country, and the South saw itself largely as not a part of the same country as the North. Before the war, the majority of the US military officers were of southern origin. After the war, men of the South did not want to join the military of the conquerors. The war that had preservation of the Union as its stated aim lead to the great alienation (to say the least) of the part of the country that wanted out in the first place.
All that was eventually realized, and great efforts were extended in order to achieve reconciliation. They were largely successful, but it took decades for the wounds to heal. The people of the South were repeatedly told - and shown - that they are Americans too (and this statement was used in all sorts of slogans). The dignity of the both sides was acknowledged. There were eventually joint reunions for the surviving Civil War veterans from the both sides, like this one in 1913:
And so, why are the graves dug up again now (and sometimes the suggestions are to do it literally)? Why are the Confederate statues toppled, the battle flags of the South removed, the names of the southern man erased from the titles of the streets, and so on? Who wants to reopen the (relatively recently) healed wounds? Who wants (and are quite successful) to split this country in two once again?
Do not deceive yourself. All this is NOT about just the Confederate States of America. It is just that the Confederates are the most defenseless part of our history at the moment, and a very convenient application point for the old and reliable method of "divide and conquer". It will not stop there - and it is not stopping there already. Here is just a couple of examples:
<< A monument in Baltimore to Christopher Columbus — believed to be the first one erected to the Italian explorer in America — was vandalized....
A video posted to YouTube on Monday by a user named “Popular Resistance” shows a man striking the base of the monument near Herring Run Park repeatedly with a sledgehammer. Another person holds a sign that reads: “Racism, tear it down.” Another sign is taped to the monument reading: “The future is racial and economic justice.” >>
<<The Thomas Jefferson Monument, which sits just outside a rotunda at the University of Virginia -- which Jefferson also founded -- was cloaked in black Tuesday evening, and adorned with signs reading “Black Lives Matter” and “TJ is a racist,” local media reported. Nearly 100 students came together to deface the statue, chanting, “No Trump, No KKK, no racist U-V-A,” the Washington Times reported. >>
To be sure, this is not a huge and unexpected news to anybody who has been following these matters. The Columbus Day has long been replaced with all sorts of "Indigenous Peoples Days" by municipalities and school districts. Here is one of the latest cases, this time from Los Angeles:
And the Founders have long been labeled racists, etc. by the activists.
The attacks are not just on the Confederates. The attacks are on all those who belong to what is euphemistically called "the majority culture". And the mandatory talks for students regarding "the majority privilege" are a part of exactly the same process. These people will NOT be satisfied by destroying just the Robert E. Lee statues.
<< Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent...Some of this difference in poverty is due to the fact that single parents tend to have less education than married couples, but even when married couples are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the married poverty rate will still be more than 75 percent lower. Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. In fact, being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has. >>
DACA means "Deferred Action". It is really "Deferred Deportation". And so one would imagine that DACA recipients should not be surprised even if they are actually deported once their two-year deferral is over. But, as that person has pointed out, THIS PROGRAM WAS MARKETED TO THEM IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT. And I am in total agreement with that point. Yes, I am sure that it was presented to them as the first step on their way to citizenship. Why the name then? That's very simple. The name was designed to pacify the American public, to present it as simply a deferral of the upcoming deportation or other action, as nothing to worry about. And so, here is my question. Why do the left worry so much about hurting the sensitivity of the illegals, who may discover that they counted on staying here permanently but will actually not (yet) have their legal status, but the same people totally do not care about the American people being deceived by being presented various kinds of amnesties as no more than some minor and totally legal technicalities, nothing to pay attention to?
Another case of such a deceit is the mantra about the illegals having to learn English, pay back taxes and a fine, etc. While this is said, there are numerous waivers in place for people who cannot afford to pay this or that fine or fee.
And so, once again, why do the left care about the sensitivities and feelings of the illegals so much while at the same time deceiving the American public and not caring for them (the public) being shocked after discovering that something that sounds as benign as "deferred deportation" actually turns to be an intended permanent measure aimed as a springboard for amnesting the illegals?
Apparently, New Hampshire allows to register to vote and to vote on the same day.
<< More than 6,500 people registered to vote on Election Day 2016 using out-of-state driver’s licenses and, as of last week, more than 5,300 of them still had not received New Hampshire licenses, state voting and safety officials said in a new report....5,313 of those who registered to vote on Nov. 8 using an out-of-state driver’s license as an ID had neither obtained a New Hampshire license nor registered a motor vehicle in the state as of a week ago. State law requires people who come to live in the state and have a motor vehicle to register that vehicle in the state and obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license within 60 days....
Jasper, R-Hudson, and state Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, who chairs the Senate Election Law Committee, said the most troubling piece of information turned up by the report is that the state’s recently approved participation in an Interstate State Voter Registration Crosscheck Program showed a potential for nearly 200 cases of double-voting.
“We are further analyzing 196 names that appear to have been marked on a New Hampshire checklist and one other state as having voted in the November 2016 general election,” Gardner and Barthelmes wrote. ...
"illegal voting by nonresidents" could have pushed Hillary Clinton to win New Hampshire's four electoral votes over Trump. Clinton won the Granite Statec contest by 2,700 votes. >>
While New Hampshire works to tighten their voter ID laws, the Democrats are doing what they can to stop them. And:
<< Marc Elias, a partner at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Perkins Coie and Clinton's former top campaign lawyer, is listed as an attorney on the New Hampshire lawsuit....
Elias was behind a number of lawsuits that were filed against voter identification laws in recent years. >>
Now - I understand why do Democrats want to have as little of voter ID requirements and as little voter fraud protection as possible. What is interesting though is that their argument advanced for the public view essentially goes in the direction that voting should be as effortless as possible. And, while I do not think that there should be unreasonable hurdles for law abiding citizens on their way to the ballot box, I simply do not understand those who buy this argument that no efforts should be necessary at all. You want to vote? Get off your couch, take care to register in time to meet the deadline, get a drivers license or a state ID and vote.
I see that idea of effortless voting as a part of the left's agenda to destroy the very basic foundation principles of the society. To deny the need to make any effort at all and to deny the importance of any merit at all (of course, this only applies to certain groups of people, while the rest of us should be forever ashamed of our "majority privilege". But the idea slowly permeates the whole society as well, it is too seductive).
I am also amazed as to how insignificant the voting is considered to be by those who believe it's no big deal that you are not required to present your ID in so many states. Voting IS important, and voter fraud is NOT a victimless crime. Let me quote the good old Lieutenant:
"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."
Here is a link to an interesting report by the Pew Research Center (which is hardly a right-wing source). http://www.pewhispanic.org/…/ii-
The report is not about DREAM/DACA specifically. It is about all first-, second-, and third(and above)-generation Hispanic/Latino people in the US (more than three-quarters of illegal aliens in the US are of Latin American origin). It also does not distinguish between legal/illegal immigrants. And so one can reasonably expect that the data for the illegal population is actually somewhat worse or at least no better than the average. Moreover, all the DACA beneficiaries and their parents are actually in the first-generation category, as those who have been born in this country are considered to be citizens by birth and are not even in need of any deportation deferral. However, children of illegals born in the US do belong to the second-generation category.
Here are some of the findings:
62% of all the first-generation US Hispanics/Latino people identify themselves by the country of origin. Only 8% self-identify as Americans. The numbers for the second generation are 43% and 35%. Thus, even American-born children of Latino immigrants are more inclined to view themselves as a part of their parents' home country than the US (again, this includes children of both illegal and legal aliens, and it is not inconceivable that the numbers for the former are actually worse). Among all the Hispanics/Latino (not just first-generation!) with at least some college, 46% self-identify primarily with the country of their Latino origin and only 33% with the US.
Among all the Hispanics, 38% speak primarily Spanish, 24% speak primarily English. Among the first-generation (which includes all the DACAers and their parents), 61% speaks primarily Spanish, 6% speak primarily English (interestingly enough, 34% of foreign-born Hispanics still consider themselves to be "typical Americans", while 58% view themselves as been very different).
What the above means is that is is WRONG to paint DACA recipients as 100% Americans who self-identify as nothing but Americans and do not even know how to speak any language except for English. Most of them identify as foreigners and are well capable of speaking the language of their country of origin. The same is true for their parents, of course.
(1) First and foremost, isn't it interesting that the left are considering this to be a punishment for a person born in a foreign country to have to go back to that country? Do they believe that it is everybody's right to live in America, and taking this right away is a punishment? (Yes, they actually do, and that is the main point they are trying to make)
(2) If you stop and think for a moment - nobody is preventing these DACA people from living in the US. They can go back to their country, get a working/student/whatever visa, and come to the US legally. Well, there is actually a law that says that if you are here illegally, this should make you ineligible for reentering this country for some time, but I do not think anybody remembers this "barbaric" (or rather very logical) law anymore, we are sooooo far beyond this as a society. And so, if these illegals are so vital to our economy, why cannot they come back on proper visas? Why do the left concentrate on a direct transitioning from illegal to amnested (one way or another) status? If the process of granting visas is so bad (not really, but let's assume this for the sake of the argument), why don't they work on a legislature to fix it (and they did not do it during the Obama years either)? The answer is clear. It's because of the point I made in (1) above. The left do not care about particular people, they care about instilling this notion that everybody has a right to come to the US, and that it is not up to the US to decide who is to be let in. They are fighting our sovereignty, the rest is much less important to them.
(3) Since they are talking about the actions of the parents of these DACE aliens - perhaps they would advocate for deporting the parents, those who committed the criminal act in the first place? No? Why not? So, they want NOBODY punished for that, and the phrase about punishing children for actions of their parents is just a convenient mantra aimed at causing a certain instinctive response, bypassing the rational facility.
(4) I have discovered that quite a few of those who are now hysterically attacking Trump for the "winding down" of DACA do not even know that the whole issue does not apply to those who have been born in this country (regardless of the immigration status of their parents). Do not get me wrong, children of illegals should not have automatic US citizenship. But this is what we have now. And it looks like many of the advocates are not even aware of this "little" detail. What can I say? Some people who are not so smart and not educated about the issues are being played by their leaders.
(5) On a more philosophical note - multiculturalism is teaching us that American culture is racist and - oh so terrrrible! - while cultures of other people are wise, broadening your horizons, and, in any case, by no means worse. If this is so, is it really such a terrible punishment to be deported from the US?
("Free" means paid by the government, a.k.a. redistributed by the government from the taxpayers).
In brief - the US academia has become ridiculously leftist, but in some cases it goes way beyond even that. The Evergreen College is just one example. For instance, their "Day of Absence" was when white members of the community were essentially intimidated into not showing up on campus, and Professor Weinstein, a liberal, who dared to question this _method_ (while having no problem with the goal!), was bullied into a situation when even his personal safety was not assured, and the university administration did nothing. Here is what even the Huffington Post wrote (I do recommend reading the whole article):
<< The Evergreen campus has become a place where identity politics takes precedence over every other aspect of social intercourse. It has become a place where it is acceptable for colleagues to levy personal attacks on colleagues in response to differences of opinion and even in response to calls for dialogue. It has become a place where it is acceptable to shout down those with whom you disagree. And it has become a place where the administration watches from the sidelines, apparently fearful of antagonizing anyone. >>
And now that college (along with some other similar places) faces huge financial difficulties, as students (and/or their parents) do not want to pay for their/their children "education" from such a place. They have to freeze hirings and to actually lay off some faculty.
And this is great! But imagine that our education had already been "free for all." The college would continue receiving funding. And, if some elected official would try to decrease it, based on the obvious problems of Evergreen as an educational establishment, all those activist judges would not let him or her do it.
It is a terrible thing to let the government and the activists make all the choices for you.
Speaking of academia - it would be great if our federal agencies (like NIH and NSF) would stop funding programs at so obviously problematic places as Harvard and Berkeley. I suspect these universities might have looked at certain things differently. At the very least, the government should reduce their overhead rates, given the amounts of money these universities spend on shielding illegals from the law or on illegal and immoral racial preferences in personnel matters. I do hope that we live long enough to see some justice in these matters.
THIS IS GREAT! It is great in itself, and also as a way to fulfill his promises.
For those of you who do not know what DACA is - Obama did all he could to make sure as many illegal aliens can come to the US and stay here as possible. He could not push legislatures of this sort through, even when both chambers of Congress had Democratic majority. And so he decided to simply not enforce the law that he could not change (which in itself was a defiance of the Constitution, of course). With DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) Obama gave legal, albeit temporary, status to those illegals who came to this county as minors.
Before some of you tell me that it was a merciful decision of Obama to let them stay - It is obviously a violation of the law. And, since Congress has never changed the law in this regard, it definitely IS in place (this fact is not required, of course, but it reinforces the illegitimacy of the Obama's selective enforcement). It is also very harmful for the country. It is a slap on the face to those who DO obey the law and come here legally. It demonstrates to everybody that it is not necessary to do things the legal way. And, coming back to the notion of mercy - this is the kind of mercy that dictates that children of a criminal should be allowed to keep a TV (or other goodies) stolen for them by their parents. Because, you know, it is cruel to take a TV away from a child, especially when they got used to it, is it not?
Also, do do tell me that Trump is "anti-immigrant." To be sure, there is no reason he (or anybody else) has to be pro-immigration. Immigration is a not an absolute value but a tool that can have certain utility for the nation, and the level of this utility goes up and down depending on the circumstances. Having said that - the difference between being anti-immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant is about the same as being anti-car ownership and anti-stolen car ownership.
And let us not forget those Republicans (including Ryan, whom I personally have disliked A LOT for a long time), who either oppose the Trump's intention to end DACA, or want to pass a legislature that would effectively reinstate it. I sincerely hope that the voters will make them pay.
The Congress had similar bills introduced since 2001, but they consistently failed. I sincerely hope there will be no national suicide this time as well, but time will twll.
Finally, I want to mention that Trump is not cancelling DACA abruptly but rather is letting it expire naturally, he is just not renewing it. If Democrats had any objectivity in their judgement, they would call this a measured approach. But they won't.
It is a pleasure to learn that I am not the only decent faculty in our academia. :) Seriously though, I highly recommend reading the whole article. On one hand, it presents the point of view that is rooted in the fundamental principles on which the society and the world as a whole stands. On the other hand it shows the typical reaction from the left and the way they use words like "racism" and "homophobia". I wrote before and I am repeating now - there are three stages of destroying any normal institution by the left. First, they tell you that people who are not quite mainstream in some sense should not be discriminated against. Then they say that the deviation from the norm is no worse than the norm. And finally the third stage comes, and this is where the very existence of the norm or any criteria in the particular area is denied. In any case, here is the quote with the link:
On August 9, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the bourgeois values that characterized mid-century American life, including child-rearing within marriage, hard work, self-discipline on and off the job, and respect for authority. The late 1960s took aim at the bourgeois ethic, they say, encouraging an “antiauthoritarian, adolescent, wish-fulfillment ideal [of] sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll that was unworthy of, and unworkable for, a mature, prosperous adult society.”
Today, the consequences of that cultural revolution are all around us: lagging education levels, the lowest male work-force participation rate since the Great Depression, opioid abuse, and high illegitimacy rates. Wax and Alexander catalogue the self-defeating behaviors that leave too many Americans idle, addicted, or in prison: “the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.”
Throwing caution to the winds, they challenge the core tenet of multiculturalism: “All cultures are not equal,” they write. “Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.” Unless America’s elites again promote personal responsibility and other bourgeois virtues, the country’s economic and social problems will only worsen, they conclude.
The University of Pennsylvania’s student newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, spotted a scandal in the making. The day after the op-ed was published, it came out with a story headlined “‘Not All Cultures Are Equal’ Says Penn Law Professor in Op-Ed.” Naturally, the paper placed Wax and Alexander’s op-ed in the context of Wax’s other affronts to left-wing dogma. It quoted a Middlebury College sociology professor who claimed that Middlebury’s “students of color were being attacked and felt attacked” by a lecture Wax gave at Middlebury College in 2013 on black-family breakdown. It noted that Penn’s Black Law Students Association had criticized her for a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2005 on black self-help. But the centerpiece of the Daily Pennsylvanian story was its interview with Wax. Wax (whom I consider a friend) is the most courageous truth-teller on American colleges today. Initially trained as a neurologist at Harvard Medical School, she possesses fearsome intelligence and debating skills. True to form, she stuck by her thesis. “I don’t shrink from the word, ‘superior’” with regard to Anglo-Protestant cultural norms, she told the paper. “Everyone wants to come to the countries that exemplify” these values. “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.” >>
Well, once again, I really recommend to keep reading following the link.
<< The ACLU got a big lesson in political correctness after posting a photo of a white baby holding an American flag to its Twitter page — and has backed off after social media trolls accused the free-speech group of promoting Nazis....
That was all it took [see the picture below - whocares1970]. A flurry of tweets from ACLU followers slammed the group, suggesting it was being racially insensitive and even likening the post to pro-Nazi commentary....
The ACLU tried to calm the waters. “When your Twitter followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere,” the national ACLU account posted,... “That’s a very good point.” >>
Folks, how long will it take you to realize that we live in a largely Nazi society, in which we are supposed to be defined by our race, and some races are superior, and that this Nazism is NOT coming from the fringes like KKK?
And this is all while the left are saying that it is the right who are against the scientific method (and the scientific method involves practical/experimental tests of hypotheses). What can I say? This is yet another illustration of the "progressive" ideas going against the very basic principles on which the human societies and the world as a whole are built.
"But Comrade Stalin, facts are stubborn things!" - "Well, so much worse for the facts!"
<< One day, a few years ago, when my girls were small, I read them Mary Poppins, the notably bizarre but durably beloved 1934 fantasy by P. L. Travers. Things were going along just fine, with Mary arriving on the east wind to kick off a series of magical adventures for her charges. Then we got to chapter six - "Bad Tuesday."
This chapter revolves around Mary's remarkable compass, which not only tells way to north, south, east, and west, but also sends Mary and the kids there. Mary barks "North!" and they find themselves at the North Pole conversing with a polar bear. The command of "South!" lands them in a steamy jungle where they eat bananas with a hyacinth macaw. "East!" takes them to China and a panda bear, while "West!" brings them to a beach where they encounter a seaweed-serving dolphin.
It was the dolphin that did it. Maybe the exotic specificity of "hyacinth macaw" should have made me wonder, but it was the dolphin, environmentalism's poster mammal, that jerked my gearshift from doting mother to PC-detector. Was it possible, was it plausible, that P. L. Travers - a British subject born at the end of the reign of Queen Victoria, the high point of the British empire - would choose a polar bear, a hyacinth macaw, a panda bear, and a dolphin to represent the four corners of the earth? Not bloody likely. (Later, I learned that the panda didn't even appear in the West until Ruth Harkness brought a cub named Su Lin out of China in 1936, two years after Mary Poppins was first published.) Another hand, contemporary and clumsy, was at work, as indicated by the note to be found in the 1997 edition's table of contents: "Chapter Six (Revised version)." A quick dip into the local library fished up a suitably old unreconstructed copy of Mary Poppins, which revealed what drove modern-day editors to rewrite the thing.
Turns out, Mary's original spin around the globe took her and the children not to visit animals of different species, but human beings of different races. To the north, in the original chapter six, Mary & Co. rub noses with "an eskimo man...his round brown face surrounded by a bonnet of white fur."This, of course, was not a face of Inuit rights advocates were going to love. His "eskimo wife" goes on to make an offer whose generosity would be lost on PETA: "Let me get you some fur coats. We've just been skinning a couple of Polar Bears." In a southern desert, a black-skinned family offers, gulp, watermelon to the parched travelers - not only ballistically "incorrect," but also botanically improbable. ("My, but dem's very white babies," the mother, her tiny "picaninny" in her arms, tells Mary.) To the east, they encounter a punctilious Chinese Mandarin, whom P. L. Travers has dressed in a kimono - which, of course, is a Japanese costume, not to mention a fashion don't for Asian activists. To the west, they meet Chief Sun-at-Noonday: "'My wigwam awaits you,' he said in a grave, friendly voice. 'We are just frying a reindeer for supper.'" (Diana West, "The Death of the Grown-Up. How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization") >>
Diana then goes on to discuss the significance of this rewrite, but I would like to point out a different issue. After the Donald Trump's victory last November, certain "progressively"-leaning bookstores filled with hastily printed copies of George Orwell's "1984". The obvious significance is that the anti-utopian world is what Orwell depicted is what Trump and his followers are building here. In fact, when my oldest sun was studying "1984" in school circa 2005, it was kinda obvious from the teaching that that world was being built by Dubya and the rest of the Republicans. And yet it is the "progressives" that edit not only our history, but also works of the literary arts to suit their agenda.
Meanwhile, Astrid Lindgren's books are burned in Sweden.
And some books like the beloved Dr. Seuss's "If I Ran the Zoo" are no longer reprinted for being politically "incorrect" (and articles are published describing how bad it is), while the good doctor's "brand" name is used to crank out very different works. (You can still buy the original "If I ran the Zoo" or read it online: https://www.scribd.com/doc/139350028/
What can I say? "1984" is the book, indeed.
In a letter dated July 11, 2017, Vincent Caron, the LCBO’s senior policy adviser, informed vendors that the CFIA had instructed them on July 6 that “Product of Israel” – as these wines are labelled – “would not be an accepting country of origin declaration for wine products that have been made from grapes that are grown fermented, processed, blended and finished in the West Bank occupied territory.”
According to the letter, “the government of Canada does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). As such, wine products from these regions that are labelled as ‘Products of Israel’ would not be acceptable and would be considered misleading… LCBO is currently working with CFIA on an action plan to ensure compliance with the notification going forward.” >>
<< Democratic state officials already are refusing to cooperate with the voter fraud investigation ordered by President Trump...
“I have no intention of honoring this request. Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia,” Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe countered in a statement Thursday, claiming the commission is based on the “specious and false notion that there was widespread voter fraud last November.”...
McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and longtime Clinton family ally, said, “At best this commission was set up as a pretext to validate Donald Trump’s alternative election facts, and at worst is a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression.”
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla struck a similar chord, saying in a statement he would “not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.”
And yet - Democrats have been pushing, and pushing, and pushing for more investigation of the ridiculous claims about Trump and Russia. In this case, they want to keep going, just in case something _might_ show up.