The Loving Christian Take on Hillary Clinton

Don FederThink Evita after Botox treatments. Think Madame Defarge on a bad hair day. Think Lady Macbeth with serious issues (“Out, out, damned bimbo!”).

To listen to the babbling heads, you’d think the Goldwater girl-turned-Alinsky-disciple could start preparing her acceptance speech (maybe Eleanor Roosevelt will help her write it). “Ooh, she’ll raise so much money.” “Ooh, women want a woman president.” In the immortal words of General Anthony McAuliffe: “Nuts!”

Win the White House? Hillary couldn’t win a popularity contest if she was the only contestant.

The Hideousness Factor — Lyndon Baines Johnson was the last profoundly ugly candidate to be elected president, and he was a legacy of the martyred JFK. Voters don’t want a leader who looks frazzled or frumpy. We’re told that Lincoln was too homely to be elected president in an age of television and paparazzi. But Lincoln’s homely face had a dignity, a gravitas. If nothing else, we want a face that reassures us, not one that scares us, a la Night of the Living Alinskyites.

—Don Feder, World Congress of Families Communications Director
Quoted in Another White Knight

Cops Lie and Are Believed Without Video

Matt TaibbiFormer North Charleston police officer Michael Slager has already been fired and charged for the murder of Walter Scott. Still, one has to wonder: “Would this guy have gotten away with this without the video?”

Nonwhite America has watched police lie compulsively about incidents like this for as long as there have been police. You can open the law books and find cases like the Scott murder in almost any state of the union, in almost every year, going back decades and decades.

The only difference is that in the past, before everyone above the age of two had a cell phone, the insultingly lame explanations of the police (“The gun just went off”; “The suspect suddenly took a swing at me”) were almost always swallowed whole, by juries and the media alike.

—Matt Taibbi
Are Cell Phones Changing the Narrative on Police Shootings?

Government Whistleblower Attacks Never Change

Seymour HershOne was a fear — nourished in part, some sources said, by Henry A Kissinger, then the President’s national security adviser — that Daniel Ellsberg, who said he turned over the Pentagon papers to the press, might pass on to the Soviet Union secrets far more important than any information contained in the Pentagon study of the Vietnam war.

Specifically, the sources said, the White House feared that Dr Ellsberg, a former Rand Corporation and Defense Department official, may have been a Soviet intelligence informer who, in the weeks after publication of the Pentagon Papers in June, 1971, was capable of turning over details of the most closely held nuclear targeting secrets of the United States, which were contained in a highly classified documents known as the Single Integrated Operation Plans, or SIOP.

The second major concern was that a highly placed Soviet agent of the KGB, the Soviet intelligence agency, operating as an American counterspy, would be compromised by continued inquiry by the special prosecutor and the Senate Watergate committee into the Ellsberg case. The agent informed his FBI contact that a set of the Pentagon papers had been delivered to the Soviet Embassy in Washington shortly after a Federal court had ordered The Times to stop printing its series of articles on the papers.

—Seymour Hersh
The President and the Plumbers (9 Dec 1973)


H/T: Trevor Timm, Before Snowden, Nixon Admin Pioneered Evidence-Free “Russian Spy” Smears Against Daniel Ellsberg

Best Teachers Not Necessarily the Smartest

Pasi SahlbergFinnish primary school teacher education programs that lead to an advanced, research-based degree are so popular among young Finns that only one in 10 applicants is accepted each year. Those lucky students then have to study for five to six years before they are allowed to teach a class of their own…

Last spring, 1,650 students took the national written test to compete for those 120 places at the University of Helsinki. Applicants received between one and 100 points for the subject exams taken to earn upper-secondary school leaving diplomas. A quarter of the accepted students came from the top 20% in academic ability and another quarter came from the bottom half. This means that half of the first-year students came from the 51- to 80-point range of measured academic ability. You could call them academically average. The idea that Finland recruits the academically “best and brightest” to become teachers is a myth. In fact, the student cohort represents a diverse range of academic success, and deliberately so…

Indeed, the University of Helsinki could easily pick the best and the brightest of the huge pool of applicants each year, and have all of their new trainee teachers with admirable grades.

But they don’t do this because they know that teaching potential is hidden more evenly across the range of different people. Young athletes, musicians, and youth leaders, for example, often have the emerging characteristics of great teachers without having the best academic record. What Finland shows is that rather than get “best and the brightest” into teaching, it is better to design initial teacher education in a way that will get the best from young people who have natural passion to teach for life.

The teaching profession has become a fashionable topic among education reformers around the world. In England, policy-makers from David Cameron down have argued that the way to improve education is to attract smarter people to be teachers. International organizations such as the OECD and McKinsey & Company, Sir Michael Barber for Pearson, and in the US, Joel Klein, former New York education chancellor now working for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, have all claimed that the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. These are myths and should be kept away from evidence-informed education policies and reforms.

A good step forward would be to admit that the academically best students are not necessarily the best teachers. Successful education systems are more concerned about finding the right people to become career-long teachers.

—Pasi Sahlberg
Q: What Makes Finnish Teachers So Special? A: It’s Not Brains


H/T: Pasi Sahlberg: Finnish Teachers Are Not “the Best and the Brightest”

Privilege in America

Anand GiridharadasDon’t console yourself that you are the 99 percent. If you live near a Whole Foods; if no one in your family serves in the military; if you are paid by the year, not the hour; if most people you know finished college; if no one you know uses meth; if you married once and remain married; if you’re not one of 65 million Americans with a criminal record — if any or all of these things describe you, then accept the possibility that actually, you may not know what’s going on, and you may be part of the problem.

—Anand Giridharadas
A Tale of Two Americas

Perceptions of Republican Carping on Iran Deal

Daniel LarisonBy itself, opposition to the deal may not sway many voters one way or the other, but it will make it harder for these candidates to get a hearing beyond their usual hawkish audiences. If this were an isolated case of opposing one deal, that would be one thing, but for all intents and purposes the position that virtually the entire field has taken is the rejection of diplomatic engagement itself. These candidates have had to adopt increasingly hard-line positions on Iran to placate the party’s ideological enforcers on these issues, and because of that they appear to everyone else to be actively hostile to any and all diplomacy. Combined with the GOP field’s lack of foreign policy experience, that is very likely to be a drag on whoever emerges as the nominee. If the eventual nominee could point to a record of good foreign policy judgment in the past, that could make criticisms of the nuclear deal a bit more persuasive. When criticisms are made by candidates with little or no relevant experience, they are more likely to be received as carping from people that don’t know what they’re talking about. When it comes to Iran and the nuclear issue, that perception will be grounded in reality.

—Daniel Larison
The Politics of the Nuclear Deal

The False Advertising of Austerity

Austerity: the History of a Dangerous IdeaAusterity doesn’t work. Period. Insofar as the fossil record contains a few cases of what look like “expansionary fiscal consolidations,” … these cases are either driven by factors other than what the austerity proponents maintain, or those proponents simply get the case wrong. Expectations leading to confidence fairies really are a fairy story. The few positive cases we can find are easily explained by currency devaluations and accommodative pacts with trade unions. In general, the deployment of austerity as economic policy has been as effective in us bringing peace, prosperity, and crucially, a sustained reduction of debt, as the Mongol Golden Horde was in furthering the development of Olympic dressage. It has instead brought us class politics, riots, political instability, more rather than less debt, assassinations, and war. It has never once “done what it says on the tin.”

—Mark Blyth
Austerity: the History of a Dangerous Idea

Ayn Rand on Abortion

Ayn RandNever mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights — and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable… Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, that is, the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

—Ayn Rand
“A Last Survey” in The Ayn Rand Letter


See the excellent Abortion page at the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Regular readers know my long history with Ayn Rand and my many specific criticisms of her. But she was quite right on the issue of abortion. I wish that liberals would talk about the issue with such force.

American Media’s Biased Overton Window

Robert ParryIf two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the US government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about “aggression,” “criminality,” “madness,” and “behavior not fitting the Twenty-first Century.”

But when the newspapers are American — The New York Times and The Washington Post — and the target country is Iran, no one in the US government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles — these incitements to murder and violation of international law — are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.

On Thursday, The New York Times printed an op-ed that urged the bombing of Iran as an alternative to reaching a diplomatic agreement that would sharply curtail Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it was used only for peaceful purposes. The Post published a similar “we-must-bomb-Iran” op-ed two weeks ago…

Both articles called on the United States to mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities and to promote “regime change” in Tehran. Ironically, these “scholars” rationalized their calls for unprovoked aggression against Iran under the theory that Iran is an aggressive state, although Iran has not invaded another country for centuries…

I realize The New York Times and Washington Post are protected by the First Amendment and can theoretically publish whatever they want. But the truth is that the newspapers are extremely restrictive in what they print. Their op-ed pages are not just free-for-alls for all sorts of opinions.

For instance, neither newspaper would publish a story that urged the United States to launch a bombing campaign to destroy Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal as a step toward creating a nuclear-free Middle East. That would be considered outside responsible thought and reasonable debate.

However, when it comes to advocating a bombing campaign against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, the two newspapers are quite happy to publish such advocacy. The Times doesn’t even blush when one of its most celebrated columnists mulls over the idea of sending weapons to the terrorists in ISIS — all presumably because Israel has identified “the Shiite crescent” as its current chief enemy and the Islamic State is on the other side.

—Robert Parry
NYT Publishes Call to Bomb Iran


H/T: Jim Naureckas

The “Poor Polling” Anti-Obamacare Argument

Jonathan ChaitIt is notable that opponents of Obamacare have fixated on the law’s poor polling. In a recent column, Reason‘s Peter Suderman quibbles halfheartedly with the law’s demonstrable success in carrying out its goals — suggesting that the astonishing drop in medical inflation may be owed to outside forces — before reveling for six paragraphs in his major point, which is continued lack of public approval. “Obamacare is simply not well liked,” he concludes, “This is the political reality — and President Obama still refuses to embrace it.”

It is telling that, having lost every substantive argument about the law’s operation, their sole remaining refuge is an argument about its perception. It’s true: their lies got halfway around the world before the truth could get its pants on. Indeed, if you google most of the factual disputes I discuss above, you’ll get a lot more hits from conservatives making hysterical and false predictions than you will find from reports showing those predictions failed to come true. Those myths still hold enormous sway over public opinion. Far more Americans believe Obamacare has death panels, which is false, than believe its costs have come in under projections, which is true. Conservatives have won the propaganda war over Obamacare. The trouble is that they think this is an indictment of Obamacare, when in fact it’s an indictment of them.

—Jonathan Chait
The Obamacare Doomsday Cult Struggles to Adapt to World That Did Not End

Rock Stars and Tax Cuts

What's the Matter with Kansas?Behold the political alignment that Kansas is pioneering for us all. The corporate world — for reasons having a great deal to do with its corporateness — blankets the nation with a cultural style designed to offend and to pretend-subvert: sassy teens in Skechers flout the Man; bigoted churchgoing moms don’t tolerate their daughters’ cool liberated friends; hipsters dressed in T-shirts reading “FCUK” snicker at the suits who just don’t get it. It’s meant to be offensive, and Kansas is duly offended. The state watches impotently as its culture, beamed in from the coasts, becomes coarser and more offensive by the year. Kansas aches for revenge. Kansas gloats when celebrities say stupid things; it cheers when movie stars go to jail. And when two female rock stars exchange a lascivious kiss on national TV, Kansas goes haywire. Kansas screams for the heads of the liberal elite. Kansas comes running to the polling place. And Kansas cuts those rock stars’ taxes.

As a social system, the backlash works. The two adversaries feed off of each other in a kind of inverted symbiosis: one mocks the other, and the other heaps even more power on the one. This arrangement should be the envy of every ruling class in the world. Not only can it be pushed much, much further, but it is fairly certain that it will be so pushed. All the incentives point that way, as do the never-examined cultural requirements of modern capitalism. Why shouldn’t our culture just get worse and worse, if making it worse will only cause the people who worsen it to grow wealthier and wealthier?

—Thomas Frank
What’s the Matter with Kansas?

The Loving Ending of God’s Not Dead

Neil Carter I originally titled this article “God’s Not Dead, but the Atheist Sure Is!” Because in the end they kill off the atheist. Are you kidding me? Could you be any more transparent in your wish fulfillment? In the end, most of the atheists see that the Christians are really the ones who are right, and they convert. But it takes getting hit by a car for the antagonist to see the error of his ways. He prays the obligatory prayer that Evangelical theology teaches is required for salvation as he lay there in a pool of his own blood. And as he’s choking out his last breath, the preacher who miraculously showed up at just the right moment to lead him in this prayer (but not a moment earlier so that he could have maybe prevented his getting hit) smiles and says, “It’s alright. In a few minutes you’re gonna know more about God than I do.”

I’d like to say that comforted the poor dying former atheist (Or was he even that, really?) but it was hard to make that out between the gurgling sounds and pained expressions. But judging by the swell of music this was supposed to be a kind of happy ending. I know they’ll say it’s because now his soul is safe in death, but I can’t help but think of the joke the dog tells in the movie Up, “A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, ‘I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead.’ Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead!”

This ending is happy because the atheist gets dead. He “gets saved,” of course, although not in any sense that’s measurable. And the atheist girl who gets cancer “gets saved” as well, although not from the cancer. Even the Muslim girl “gets saved” although her dad still won’t look at her because of his religion. But now all of these people think correctly about a narrow field of topics, so they’re approved. Happy ending.

—Neil Carter
What I Learned about Atheists from God’s Not Dead