Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
JakeHolman

2020 Socialist/Marxist /Feminism/Abortion Democrat Party News & Opinion ....

Recommended Posts

logo.svg

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

 

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion

Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt
, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria
 

Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 

Sincerely,

 

Bari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbes

EDITORS' PICK|286 views|Jul 15, 2020,08:26am EDT

Biden’s $2 Trillion New Green Deal Underscores The Need To Separate Energy Policy From Politics

 

Michael LynchSenior Contributor
I analyze petroleum economics and energy policy.
 
SLUG: PH-OBAMASTIM DATE: 2/17/09 CREDIT: BILL O'LEARY / TWP

Biden and Obama touring solar panels, 2009. 

THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

The Joe Biden presidential campaign has released a new proposal for energy and environmental policy, including plans to spend $2 trillion over a decade and a goal of achieving 100% clean electricity standard by 2035. Also promised: good union jobs, a jolt of new life to the economy, and for all children to be above average. (Stole that last from “Lake Woebegone Days”.) Without knowing the details yet, there are a lot of cautionary remarks that need to be made, not just about this plan, but about politically motivated energy policy in general.

First, I have to admit my attitude towards energy politics tends to be closer to ‘a pox on both their houses’ rather than embracing either side in the debate. In part, this reflects my belief that there shouldn’t be ‘sides’ to the debate, that is, policies driven by partisan or ideological views as opposed to cost-benefit analysis. And the public debate tends to be driven by clichés and superficial concepts rather than serious discussion of the challenges and optimal responses. (Shocking, I know.) Democrat usually address energy demand, Republicans energy supply, and few think about costs and/or benefits in any systematic way. 

For example, Democrats will tell you that spending money to create jobs is great policy, but if you suggest government support for nuclear power on the justification that millions of guards would need to be employed, according to Ralph Nader said in the 1970s, you will cause eyes to roll all over Washington.

The biggest problem is that most energy policies are not designed by experts, but by politicians who respond to a mix of ideology and special interests. Republicans want free markets and support for corporations, Democrats want regulation and union jobs. (Yes, that is a gross simplification, but with large grains of truth.)

There is an excellent example of how to go wrong with a major program of energy transition — the German Energiewende. To quote a recent article in Der Spiegel, “Germany's Federal Court of Auditors is even more forthright about the failures. The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures ‘are in extreme disproportion to the results,’ Federal Court of Auditors President Kay Scheller said last fall…”

That amount is roughly half what Biden is proposing to spend (annualized), and the result has not only been disappointing but not significantly better than what the U.S. accomplished since 2011, as the figure below shows. Of course, the policy devil is in the details: the U.S. has huge cheap natural gas resources which made switching from coal to gas for power generation economically attractive, Germany has to pay much more for gas imports. Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima incident, and replaced it with lignite (for now), the U.S. has retained most of its nuclear power.

 

now), the U.S. has retained most of its nuclear power.

Carbon emissions

Carbon Emissions in the U.S. and German (million tonnes)

 THE AUTHOR FROM BP DATA.

And there is increasing public scrutiny over a) the cost of ‘clean’ energy, and b) the side effects, particularly the massive land usage that renewables require. I’ve long argued that federal subsidies for electric vehicle purchases represent money for the well-to-do to buy expensive toys, and while electric vehicle technology is much improved in recent years, it is still one of the most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The actual costs vary according to the source of the electricity, but most estimates of greenhouse gas abatement costs don’t even include Battery Electric Vehicles, as they would be off the chart. 

When Donald Trump was elected, I argued against a knee-jerk rejection of existing regulation, but a careful appraisal of existing regulations and revising them to achieve similar goals with less cost. Hopefully, a President Biden would not simply undo every Trump Administration initiative in a knee-jerk response to his predecessor’s approach, but rely on sophisticated, in-depth analysis of costs and benefits.

Many wail that the U.S. has no energy policy, but I think the first step was similar to that of Ronald Reagan, which I would characterize as “First, do no harm.” (Stolen from the health care profession.) Past energy policies have included the Carter Synfuels Program, the Clinton Administration’s Partner for a New Generation Vehicle program (supporting a diesel-electric hybrid), or the Obama Administration’s Recovery Act which included by their estimate was “…the largest single investment in clean energy in history, providing more than $90 billion in strategic clean energy investments and tax incentives to promote job creation and the deployment of low-carbon technologies, and leveraging approximately $150 billion in private and other non-federal capital for clean energy investments.” 

 As the figure below shows, none of these seems to have made much of an impact on U.S. energy consumption, although admittedly it is an eagle-eye view.

US energy use per capita and per unit of GDP

Evolution of US Energy USe

 THE AUTHOR FROM EIA DATA.

Presumably this piece will generate a huge amount of “what-about-isms” in response and I certainly would not suggest that such a general view should guide energy policy in any precise way. Rather, the policy needs more careful consideration than sound-bites, clichés, and aphorisms, but rather detailed cost-benefit analysis if it is to avoid the kind of waste that occurred in the German Energiewende program or the Carter Synthetic Fuels Corporation.

WHITEHOUSE.GOVFACT SHEET: The Recovery Act Made The Largest Single Investment In Clean Energy In History, Driving The Deployment Of Clean Energy, Promoting Energy Efficiency, And Supporting Manufacturing

I am a Distinguished Fellow at the Energy Policy Research Foundation and President of Strategic Energy and Economic Research. I spent nearly 30 years at MIT as a student

 Read More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Western Journal
COMMENTARY
BLM Protesters Brutally Attack Customers Peacefully Eating Dinner: Caught on Video
By C. Douglas Golden
Published July 16, 2020 at 8:35am

Video of Black Lives Matter protesters interrupting diners at a restaurant in Dallas has gone viral — and now, one of the customers who was eating in the restaurant when the violence started is speaking out.

According to The Daily Caller, Damani Felder — one half of the black conservative YouTube political duo The Right Brothers — took the footage as he was sitting down to eat in an unnamed restaurant.

The incident occurred Saturday, Felder said, when he was at one of the last get-togethers he would have with his friends before he moved.

Western Journal >> https://www.westernjournal.com/blm-protesters-brutally-attack-customers-peacefully-eating-dinner-caught-video/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=conservative-brief-WJ&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=western-journal&ats_es=d1d9d5db078c535efec82c0b247fe08a

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image result for ny post

OPINION
Teaching hate under the guise of ‘inclusion’ — in the US Army
By Hans Von Spakovsky and Charles StimsonJuly 16, 2020 | 7:55pm
 

A Black Lives Matter billboard is seen next to a Confederate flag in Pittsboro, N.C.

A Black Lives Matter billboard is seen next to a Confederate flag in Pittsboro, N.C.

AP

 

Members of the military, uniformed and civilian, are strictly prohibited from engaging in overt political activities. Those rules exist to keep them focused on their mission — defending the nation.

But apparently, someone in the US Army’s Equity and Inclusion Agency has forgotten the rules. With a course titled “Operation Inclusion,” the agency is promoting the line that if you support enforcing immigration law, or say things like “all lives matter,” then you’re a white supremacist.

GOP Rep. Mo Brooks blew the lid when he learned the agency had organized two seminars to re-educate all of the uniformed and civilian personnel at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. Brooks demanded an immediate investigation into “Army personnel illegally using federal government resources to distribute racist and partisan political propaganda in direct violation” of federal law and military regulations.

Yet the two seminars at Redstone are just the first offerings of the program. Eventually, the woke agency plans to bring them to “all Army four-star commands.”

What, exactly, is Operation Inclusion bringing to the bases? Well, the agency e-mail inviting all Redstone Arsenal personnel to the seminar included a pyramid graphic that claimed certain phrases — including “Make America Great Again,” President Trump’s campaign theme — are evidence of “Covert White Supremacy” that is lamentably “social accetable [sic].”

Indeed, according to the graphic, you are a racist if you discuss any of these ideas or use any of the following phrases:

  • All Lives Matter
  •  Denial of White Privilege
  •  Inequitable Health Care
  •  Anti-Immigration Policies
  •  English-Only Initiatives
  •  Celebration of Columbus Day
  •  American Exceptionalism
  •  Claiming Reverse Racism
  •  There is Only One Human Race

There are dozens of more suspect phrases and themes that cover every aspect of the liberal social, cultural and political orthodoxy. Apparently, if you fail to embrace “progressive” views on virtually all issues — if, for example, you believe in “colorblindness,” another prohibited concept — you are no better than a Klan member. The graphic even features a cartoon of a man in a T-shirt that says “White America” holding a sign saying “I Can’t See.”

Also included in the e-mail was another poster from the Assistant Secretary of Army-Manpower and Reserve Affairs, urging recipients to read five different articles, including one titled “Five Practices and Three Myths That Fuel Inequality.” What are the three “myths”? They are “efficiency,” “meritocracy” and “positive globalization” (huh?).

There is no doubt the Army’s Office of Inclusion and Equity can find ways to teach military personnel about the positive values of inclusion and equity in a nonpartisan way. Instead, it has taken a different, highly toxic approach that if anything feeds racial stereotyping.

America’s armed forces have worked for decades to promote racial equality — indeed, they are pioneers in this regard. And they have worked tirelessly to achieve a force composed of well-trained, disciplined, apolitical warriors, regardless of race or gender. Yes, there is work to do, but the military — from boot camp to officer training — strives to be a place where hard work and rule-following are rewarded.

Partisan political baggage has no place in the military, nor should it.

But now, as Rep. Brooks reports, an Army agency has distributed official Army material from an official Army e-mail account claiming that the campaign slogan of the president of the United States is racist. That’s plainly illegal. And it’s morally wrong. Brooks has a point, and the Army has some explaining to do.

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, and the Army general counsel, should look into this — and then take appropriate action against those found in violation of the law.

Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Charles “Cully” Stimson, also a senior legal fellow, heads Heritage’s National Security Law Program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Marxists will infuse the troops with their evil principles gaining control of them in the event of a domestic insurrection ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image result for ny post

OPINION
The lunatic drive for racial quotas for COVID-19 vaccines
By Betsy McCaugheyJuly 16, 2020 | 7:38pm
 

Patient gets an injection

At least two COVID-19 vaccines are scoring major successes in trials.

AFP via Getty Images

 

At least two COVID-19 vaccines are scoring major successes in trials. That means a vaccine might be ready by year’s end, but not in sufficient quantity to vaccinate more than 300 million Americans. Frontline health workers and national-security personnel will be top priority, but after that, who comes next?

A federal committee is considering pushing blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans to the front of the line, ahead of whites.

Dr. José Romero, who chairs the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, wants minority groups to get favored treatment. Billionaire donor Melinda Gates likewise is pushing for blacks to get vaccinated right behind health workers but ahead of “people with underlying health conditions, and then people who are older.”

Americans need to speak up, before such a plan is adopted. If the virus surges, getting the vaccine could mean the difference between leaving your house safely or being shut-in, or even the difference between life and death. Making race a factor is unjustified by medical science and will only inflame the racial hostilities already roiling America.

If blacks were more vulnerable because of race, as they are with sickle-cell anemia, there would be a medical argument for racial preferences. But scientific data show no direct causal connection between race and COVID-19 deaths.

Scientists in the United States and Europe have plentiful data on who gets infected and who is least likely to survive COVID-19, and their findings can help prioritize who should get vaccinated.

Forget using crude racial proxies.

Who is at risk of dying? The elderly, above all, and anyone with medical conditions such as heart disease, morbid obesity, hypertension and diabetes.

People of all ethnicities can suffer from these conditions, but blacks do so disproportionately. That’s why, if they contract COVID-19, they’re more apt to need hospitalization and ICU care than infected whites, according to new research in the New England Journal of Medicine. African Americans made up 31 percent of the Louisiana population studied, but 70 percent of the infected, 77 percent of hospitalized cases and 80 percent of patients in the ICU.

New York City data show that blacks with COVID-19 are more likely to be hospitalized than whites are, largely because obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other complications make the virus more life-threatening.

ACIP should prioritize vaccinating people with these complications. Many will be black, to be sure, but they will be getting priority treatment for medical reasons, not skin color.

People who live in crowded urban areas and in multi-generational households are at higher risk of COVID-19. So are mass-transit riders and people who work in close contact with the public, such as fast-food attendants and bus drivers.

In Britain, that group is heavily Middle Eastern and East Asian. In the United States, it’s often black and Hispanic. But not always. Using race to prioritize vaccinations would result in unfair situations, like putting the black college professor who works from home ahead of the white transit worker.

Instead, the CDC committee should prioritize population-dense neighborhoods and multi-generational households, as well as highly exposed workers like ­supermarket cashiers and bus drivers.

What about claims that blacks with COVID-19 are getting inferior medical care? That’s an insult to frontline health workers of all races, and the evidence suggests it’s also untrue. In the New England Journal of Medicine study, 80 percent of patients sick enough to be in the ICU were black, but only 71 percent of those who died. In other words, blacks in the ICU had a better chance of surviving than whites in the ICU did.

The same holds true in New York City, though the data are incomplete. Black hospital patients with COVID-19 appear to survive at slightly higher rates than do hospitalized COVID-19 patients of other races.

To get Americans vaccinated — a huge challenge — we need to put aside racial politics and be guided by science. Many minorities will still go to the front of the line, but based on medical need, not woke ideology.

Betsy McCaughey is author of the forthcoming book “The Next Pandemic.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, we are all in this together ... Right ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- PaulCraigRoberts.org - https://www.paulcraigroberts.org -

Black Militia on the March, Demands Independent Country

Posted By pcr3 On July 18, 2020 @ 9:59 am In Guest Contributions | Comments Disabled

Black Militia on the March, Demands Independent Country 

Strange, isn’t it, that if you want to find out anything about America you have to turn to the Russian media.  Here is a report on a heavily armed black militia that marched around the suberbs outside Atlanta— https://www.rt.com/usa/495109-nfac-black-militia-blm/ [1] 

It sounds more radical than a white militia.  Where is the FBI?  Is the Not **** Around Coalition (NFAC) being investigated?  Nope.  That would be racism.

I find it difficult not to agree with some of what the group’s leader, Grand Master John Fitzgerald, says.  For example, “When a people are denied knowledge of their culture and history of self, they have nothing to be proud of.”  This is exactly what white liberals have been doing to white people.  Think only of the New York Times propagandistic “1619 Project.”

Americans need to understand that liberalism is a deadly disease that only infects white people.  There is no such thing as a black liberal. Blacks have more sense.  

Here is the latest example of the liberal disease:

Georgia Police Protect Black Home Intruder, Arrest Homeowner

https://www.theblaze.com/news/dad-arrested-charged-after-beating-man-20-he-found-in-his-14-year-old-daughters-room?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=mixi&utm_campaign=theblaze [2] 

 
Share this page
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mob now know they can get away with  anything. Result will be their actions to now proceed into areas that were thought off limits.  Law abiding citizens had better wake up and make sure they are armed and ready to defend themselves ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

th_logo.svg

Charles Barkley is Not Happy About Anti-White, Anti-Semitic Comments From Black Celebrities

Bronson Stocking|

Posted: Jul 17, 2020 9:00 PM

Charles Barkley is Not Happy About Anti-White, Anti-Semitic Comments From Black Celebrities

Source: AP Photo/John Locher

 

American basketball legend Charles Barkley is calling out black celebrities for their anti-Semitic and anti-white racism. 

"Listen, DeSean Jackson, Stephen Jackson, Nick Canon, Ice Cube - Man, what the hell are y'all doing?" asked Barkley in a Steam Room podcast. 

"Y'all want racial equality," Barkley began. "We all do. I don't understand how insulting another group helps our cause."

Read >> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/07/17/charles-barkley-talks-truth-i-dont-understand-how-you-beat-hatred-with-more-ha-n2572704?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=07/18/2020&bcid=d1d9d5db078c535efec82c0b247fe08a&recip=3533816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPINION

 

Image result for ny post

The family that owns The New York Times were slaveholders: Goodwin

July 18, 2020 | 10:39pm | Updated

new york times

JOHANNES EISELE/AFP via Getty Images

 

It’s far worse than I thought. In addition to the many links between the family that owns The New York Times and the Civil War Confederacy, new evidence shows that members of the extended family were slaveholders.

Last Sunday, I recounted that Bertha Levy Ochs, the mother of Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs, supported the South and slavery. She was caught smuggling medicine to Confederates in a baby carriage and her brother Oscar joined the rebel army.

I have since learned that, according to a family history, Oscar Levy fought alongside two Mississippi cousins, meaning at least three members of Bertha’s family fought for secession.

Adolph Ochs’ own “Southern sympathies” were reflected in the content of the Chattanooga Times, the first newspaper he owned, and then The New York Times. The latter published an editorial in 1900 saying the Democratic Party, which Ochs supported, “may justly insist that the evils of negro suffrage were wantonly inflicted on them.”

Six years later, the Times published a glowing profile of Confederate President Jefferson Davis on the 100th anniversary of his birth, calling him “the great Southern leader.”

Ochs reportedly made contributions to rebel memorials, including $1,000 to the enormous Stone Mountain Memorial in Georgia that celebrates Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. He made the donation in 1924 so his mother, who died 16 years earlier, could be on the founders’ roll, adding in a letter that “Robert E. Lee was her idol.”

In the years before his death in 1931, Ochs’ brother George was simultaneously an officer of The New York Times Company and a leader of the New York Chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Enlarge Image John Mayer, who was married into the Ochs family and a slave registry.

All that would be bad enough given that the same family still owns the Times and allows it to become a leader in the movement to demonize America’s founding and rewrite history to put slavery at its core. As part of that revisionism, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are suddenly beyond redemption, their great deeds canceled by their flaws.

But shouldn’t such breathtaking self-righteousness include the responsibility to lead by example? Shouldn’t the Times first clean out the Confederates in its own closet?

That was the question last week. It is now more urgent because of the new information.

A week ago, I was “aware of no evidence or claims that any members of Bertha’s family owned slaves or participated in the slave trade.”

That statement is no longer accurate. I have found compelling evidence that the uncle Bertha Levy Ochs lived with for several years in Natchez, Miss., before the Civil War owned at least five slaves.

 

He was her father’s brother and his name was John Mayer because he dropped the surname Levy, according to a family tree compiled by the Ochs-Sulzberger clan some 70 years ago.

Mayer was a store owner and prominent leader of the small Jewish community in Natchez and, during the war, organized a home-guard unit, according to family letters and historians.

Neither the 1860 census nor its separate “slave schedule” lists the names of Mayer’s slaves. They are identified as two males, ages 70 and 26, and three females, ages 65, 45 and 23.

That makes it likely that Mayer had slaves when niece Bertha lived with him for several years before she married Julius Ochs in 1853. Mayer and his wife had 14 children and were affluent enough that it would have been unusual if they didn’t own slaves, according to Robert Rosen, author of “The Jewish Confederates.”

Enlarge ImageBertha, who came from Germany as a teenager, might have been horrified by the experience of witnessing and being served by human chattel. Instead, she fully embraced the barbaric practice and became devoted to the “peculiar institution.” She was a charter member of a Daughters of the Confederacy chapter and requested that a Confederate flag be draped across her coffin, which it was.

Separately, there is also compelling evidence that the brother of a Revolutionary War-era ancestor of the Sulzberger branch of the family was involved in the slave trade.

His name was Abraham Mendes Seixas, and he was born in New York City in 1750. He was an officer in the Continental Army during the war, then stayed in South Carolina, where accounts describe him as a slave merchant and/or auctioneer.

The Final Victims,” a 2004 book about the slave trade by James McMillin, reprints a poem published in a Charleston newspaper in 1784 advertising an upcoming sale.

It reads in part:

“Abraham Seixas . . . He has for sale, Some Negroes, male

“Will suit full well grooms,

“He has likewise Some of their wives

“Can make clean, dirty rooms.

“For planting, too, He has a few

“To sell, all for cash, . . . or bring them to the lash.”

A few lines later, Seixas adds, “The young ones, true, if that will do.”

Enlarge Image

The discovery of these lurid histories gives me no pleasure. The Ochs-Sulzberger family is a great American family that has served our nation in war and peace since its founding. Ochs himself turned the struggling New York Times into the gold standard of journalism and the paper under his heirs often took great risks to defend the First Amendment.

I will forever be grateful to the lessons I learned during my 16 years there. But it was a different paper then, one where standards of fairness were enforced and reporters’ biases were left on the cutting-room floor.

Now the standards are on the cutting-room floor, with every story dominated by reporters’ opinions. The result is a daily train wreck that bears little resemblance to the traditions of what used to be a great newspaper, trusted because it was impartial.

Even worse, the Times has moved beyond overt partisanship to declare itself the decider of all things relating to race. Its 1619 Project insists that slavery was the key to the nation’s founding, and that the war for independence was primarily about perpetuating white supremacy.

 

This narrative is deeply misguided, according to a long list of top historians. Yet the paper is not deterred, and has ramped up its demonization of any who disagree with that or its reckless support for the Marxist-inspired Black Lives Matter agenda.

Handcuff the cops, tear down the statues, rewrite the textbooks, make America the world’s bad guy — that’s what today’s Times is selling.

Anyone with such an activist agenda better be purer than Caesar’s wife. The Times clearly fails that test and owes its staff, stockholders and readers a full account of the slave holders and Confederates in its past.

My hope is that after taking a dose of their own medicine, the owner and editors will focus their efforts where they belong: on making The New York Times a great newspaper again.

 

12

 
 
 
FILED UNDER BLACK LIVES MATTER  CIVIL WAR  NEW YORK TIMES  SLAVERY  7/18/20
 

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPINION

Image result for ny post
 

Beware the Biden-Sanders radical lefty manifesto: Devine

 

Joe Biden is pursuing the same socialist fantasies just like Bernie Sanders did.

Joe Biden, left, and Bernie Sanders
AP

Joe Biden signed the death warrant for his campaign last week, even if he doesn’t know it. The joint manifesto he released with Bernie Sanders is 110 pages of radical far-left policies — from a job-killing $2 trillion climate agenda to eliminating cash bail and dismantling border protection.

It betrays the working-class voters Biden claims to represent and destroys any pretense that he is a “moderate.”

As Sanders has boasted, Biden would be “the most progressive president since FDR.”

Well-meaning people might stick their fingers in their ears and vote for Biden out of nostalgia for a Democratic Party that no longer exists or out of exhaustion at the relentless anti-Trump barrage.

But with his “Unity Task Forces” document, Biden has proven only that he is an empty husk. Old Joe, who was for police and working people and law and order, is long gone. His body is there but, like his party, it has been invaded by the socialist left.

Under Biden’s manifesto, “Climate change is a global emergency” which requires “decarbonizing” American industries and eliminating carbon dioxide emissions to “net zero.”

It is the Green New Deal on steroids.

It will eliminate fossil fuel power by 2035, aka “commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035.”

Within five years, “we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems, and 60,000 made-in-America wind turbines.”

Note there’s no mention of “made-in-America” solar panels. The only way to install 500 million solar panels in five years is to buy them from China. In other countries, such as Australia, which have gone down this path, the result is cheap, shoddy solar systems that fall apart within five years.

Of course, we will have to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, and pay the Green Climate Fund, the United Nations slush fund which gives grants to China, even though China doesn’t contribute a cent.

This is a straight transfer of American taxpayer funds to the Chinese Communist Party. Way to go, Joe.

Hilariously, the document claims this will all result in lower electricity bills.

It’s a fantasy. America’s prosperity has been built on cheap fossil fuel energy. That will end with Biden’s plan. Where will baseload power come from when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow?

Almost two-thirds of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and the experience of countries such as Australia and Germany is that switching to wind and solar drives up the cost of electricity.

Take California, which has mandated zero emissions by 2045. Electricity prices there are 60 percent more, on average, than in the rest of the United States and rose five times faster between 2011 and 2017, according to a study by Environmental Progress.

Naturally, the nation’s most radical green groups are ****-a-hoop about the Biden-Sanders manifesto.

The word “union” appears 49 times in the document and “working families” 17 times, as Biden pretends that high-paying fossil fuel jobs and pensions in places such as Pennsylvania and Ohio will be magically transformed into new climate jobs, building wind turbines and electric cars and climate-retrofitting 4 million homes.

To pay for all this, Biden promises to increase taxes. At least he’s honest about it.

He’ll hike the top income-tax rate by almost two points and the corporate tax rate by seven points, undoing the engine that kickstarted Trump’s economy.

In other words, he plans to punish the wealth creators and redistribute their money to an ever-expanding class of supplicants. Not that it will be enough.

There’s a lot more to fear in the 50,000-word manifesto.

Biden will abandon school choice and eliminate or hobble charter schools. That fits with his comments in May to an MSNBC public education forum when he said, “Charter schools are gone.”

He will also “eliminate high-stakes standardized tests that unfairly label students.”

Crime, too, will follow the de Blasio model which has been so successful in driving up crime rates in New York.

“Eliminating the use of cash bail” tops the list, along with “decriminalize marijuana use.”

Enlarge Image A shale gas well drilling site in St. Mary’s, Pennsylvania.AP

Biden’s campaign vehemently denies that he supports defunding the police. But in an interview with activist Ady Barkan on digital media site NowThis News last week he said, “Yes, absolutely,” when asked if “we can redirect some of the [police] funding?”

Redirecting “some” funding away from police is a euphemism for defunding police, at least partially.

It tells you he has common cause with the anti-cop wreckers. So does the fact a Biden campaign staffer derided police as worse than “pigs” in tweets which also used the hashtag #Defundpolice.

Biden speaks out of both sides of his mouth on fracking, too. He said during a debate in April that he would ban oil and gas fracking, which accounts for 10 million jobs and has catapulted America to the top world producer.

His campaign subsequently insisted he won’t touch fracking.

But his manifesto will ban fracking on “federal lands and waters.” The Institute for Energy Research says the policy will reduce revenues by $6 billion nationally over the next 15 years and eliminate 270,000 US jobs.

Just what we need in a pandemic-crippled economy.

The biggest clue to the destructive ideology that drives the Biden-Sanders manifesto is the word “equity,” which appears 34 times.

Equity means equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. It is the very DNA of Marxism and everything bad flows from it, as we saw in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

This is not a path to electoral success. The Democrats are following the same road to oblivion as Australia’s Labor party and the UK’s Labour Party did last year, with similar agendas.

No matter how many New York Times columnists try to craft Biden an image as “working class Joe” from Scranton, “a man who is not ideological,” or dream up excuses for him not to debate President Trump, the charade is unsustainable.

At some point the mask will slip.

Disastrous Blasio deserves art attack

Congratulations to Mayor de Blasio for turning a patch of Fifth Avenue into a lightning rod for disharmony.

Saturday a woman yelling, “Refund the police,” threw a bucket of black paint on his yellow BLM “mural” outside Trump Tower, the second paint attack in a week.

“You wanna defund the police for black people?” shouted Bevelyn Beatty, as police dutifully tried to stop her smearing the paint. “We want our police! Refund our police!”

‪Then, Sunday morning, a Trump supporter in knee pads neatly chalked “Trump 2020” alongside Hizzoner’s official graffiti.

Turns out de Blasio has provided a perfect place for New Yorkers to protest his disastrous reign.

 

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Pres. Trump needs to do is to hammer away at fracking and the high unemployment the Green New Deal will bring .... don't believe energy workers want to lose their 75,000 and up in income and full boat benefits for lousy paying solar panel jobs ....

PA. in the bag for Trumpus ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...