The New Neo

Butt-call to Siri saves teenager’s life

Posted on August 18, 2015 by neoAugust 18, 2015

A Tennessee man might not be alive had he not “butt-dialed” Siri on his iPhone.

Sam Ray, 18, said the accidental phone call saved his life after he was pinned under a truck while home alone. A month ago, Ray was in the Vanderbilt Trauma Unit after being crushed underneath his truck.

“I had a funny noise underneath that I thought needed attention,” he said. “So I got underneath there and located the noise.”

The jack he was using fell apart and sent the nearly 5,000 pound truck crashing down on his chest and limbs.

“It felt like my leg was breaking because I could feel it bending,” Ray said.

As Ray tried to free his leg, his iPhone lit up in his back pocket. It was Siri.

“You know when Siri goes off at the most inopportune time? I was like, ‘Why are you going off?'” Ray said.

Ray realized Siri was there to help. While on his back, his body somehow hit the phone’s home button. Doctors called it “the butt-dial that saved his life.”

“I said, ‘Call 911,’ and that was all it said,” Ray said.

The bulk of the comments to the story, however, are not about its heart-warming aspects. They’re about Ray’s lack of attention to one of the cardinal rules of getting under your car. Here’s a typical suggestion:

“Looking back on it, he and his family said Ray must be here for a reason and purpose.”

Yes, to spread the good news to others to always use jackstands or ramps and never work under a vehicle using only a jack. Especially one that “falls apart”.

It’s a good thing he keeps his brains where they could call for help.

Let me just say that I will take heed. I will never be working under a vehicle at all if I can possibly help it.

In fact, I won’t even go near my vehicle if a snapping turtle is taking a nap under it. When that happened, I called the police and they sent the fire department to remove the turtle. That sucker was big (both the turtle, and the fire truck). Here’s a photo I took; I refused to get too close so it’s rather dark, but you can see the size of the turtle relative to the car, although the turtle actually looked somewhat larger in real life:

Yes indeed, I’m a wimp.

Arguing for and against Trump

Posted on August 18, 2015 by neoJanuary 27, 2016

Commenter “Tonawanda” is puzzled and disturbed by the following exchange on Mark Steyn’s site. In it, Steyn reports receiving the following query:

You insist that Trump has traction because ” … ‘real’ Republicans and ‘real’ ‘conservatives’ in Washington [haven’t] managed actually to ‘conserve’ anything during their time in office”.

One of Rush’s common points is that we haven’t had one of those in the White House since Reagan. Now we actually have several running. So not sure why it’s reasonable to turn to a candidate that is the farthest thing from one in the race. Cruz? I’m not onboard but I get why people would turn to him. Trump? … Trump???

I agree that immigration is an existential threat to the country. It needs to be at the top of the list in terms of priority. Where I guess I diverge from the Trumpkins is their seeming belief that it’s the ONLY issue of import. Is a debt to GDP ratio on par with Greece not ALSO an existential threat? Is a bumbling, unprincipled foreign policy not also in that category? Is the ever expanding police state that shuts down July 4th parades for lack of compliant signage not a concern? Pray tell, then, how it’s reasonable to support a candidate that VIGOROUSLY supports eminent domain? One that believes having bankruptcy law expertise is a useful tool when dealing with multi-trillion dollar governmental debt? One that “doesn’t particularly care” whether Ukraine joins NATO or gets blown to smithereens?

Yes, build a wall. But when the dollar collapses it’ll just make it harder for illegal immigrants to get out as they head back home for work. Let’s hope by that point the place doesn’t resemble East Berlin and the wall is repurposed to keep people in.

I really like Mark Steyn’s work. I’ve discussed him many times on this blog, always with approval, as far as I can recall.

That said, here is Steyn’s reply to the query:

All you say might well be true. It could be that Trump is just a phony and a liar, but the last people in the world in a position to complain about that are the Republican establishment. What’s the old saying? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. 2010 was fool me once, 2014 was fool me twice, 2016 would be fool me thrice, which is asking a lot even for the stupid party. Which is why, collectively, Trump, Carson and Fiorina, who haven’t a day in elected office between them, now command some 42 per cent in recent polls.

I confess that I find Steyn’s response both strange and disheartening. Trump supporters seem to me to be moths flying to a flame they find absolutely irresistible. They know it might and in fact probably will burn, but they don’t care anymore. They ignore all rational arguments that might dissuade them because they want to fly into it (yes, I know, the metaphor doesn’t hold up; moths don’t ignore rational arguments, nor do they follow them. But I think you get the idea.)

But the author of the email to Steyn never said Trump’s a phony or a liar (although many certainly say it). What he does say is that Trump is not a conservative, and there are actual conservatives running in this race to choose instead, such as Cruz. Steyn inexplicably goes to the “phony and liar” strawman, and then says that the Republican establishment shouldn’t complain about Trump being either because they are, too.

Well, that would be an argument against (a) a member of the GOP establishment, who (b) is a phony and/or a liar, who is (c) complaining about Trump being one. But it certainly isn’t an argument against Cruz, who is neither phony nor liar nor member of the GOP establishment (in fact, he has been the major voice in Congress opposing it), and is also not calling Trump a liar or a phony. So it certainly isn’t an argument for Trump over people such as Cruz, or Walker—or (as Steyn seems to concede) Fiorina or Carson, who are also running this year.

So Steyn doesn’t even begin to answer the question. Instead, he calls the Republican establishment phonies and liars. Even if he’s correct (I believe that the charge is true of many, and not all), his point is quite simply irrelevant to the query.

I’m not sure what’s going on here. I merely observe that quite a few people on the right such as Steyn—who is an extremely gifted writer as well as ordinarily a logical and clear thinker—is writing and thinking in a way I’ve not seen from him before.

This is true of others on the right, as well. It seems to me that they have reached such a pinnacle of frustration and anger at the GOP that they are not thinking straight.

Hillary’s email server…

Posted on August 18, 2015 by neoAugust 18, 2015

…was in the toilet.

And that’s not just a metaphor:

The IT company Hilary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account was run from a loft apartment and its servers were housed in the bathroom closet, Daily Mail Online can reveal.

Daily Mail Online tracked down ex-employees of Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado, who revealed the outfit’s strong links to the Democratic Party but expressed shock that the 2016 presidential candidate chose the small private company for such a sensitive job.

One, Tera Dadiotis, called it ‘a mom and pop shop’ which was an excellent place to work, but hardly seemed likely to be used to secure state secrets. And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.

It can also be disclosed that the small number of employees who were aware of the Clinton contract were told to keep it secret.

The way in which Clinton came to contract a company described as a ‘mom and pop’ operation remains unclear.

However Daily Mail Online has established a series of connections between the firm and the Democratic Party.

We’re in the best of hands.

The fact that this news was broken in a British newspaper is not surprising; I’ve noticed they often dig deeper into these stories than US papers do. That’s assuming the story is correct, of course; it might not be. I’m almost hoping it’s not correct, because Clinton supporters won’t care about the facts contained in it, and that’s why I think Hillary still has a very good chance of becoming the next president. And if she’s president, I hope she’s more able to protect national security than that—although none of the evidence we’ve seen so far indicates any ability or desire to do so.

[NOTE: See this and this.]

Poetry: sunsprung bright Julys

Posted on August 17, 2015 by neoAugust 17, 2015

Despite the title of this post it’s August now, not July. And a lovely August it is.

The other day I was walking along the street in a beach town in New England on a sunny day. It’s the sort of place you see everywhere in New England in summertime; so cold and spare in the winter, now filled with people on vacation taking in the local color—the weathered buildings, the fishing boats and lobster traps, the ice cream parlors and the taffy shops.

This year dresses are in vogue for women. You still see a lot of women and girls in shorts, of course. But sundresses long and short, and usually very colorful, are everywhere. Everywhere also are young women, who happen to be the ones who look best in those dresses, women on the cusp of their adulthood, feeling the full power of their beauty, trim and athletic and sag-free and glowing.

What popped into my mind while I was studying all of this was a poem, of course. That poem is called “Siasconset Song,” and I can’t remember where I first read it but I know it was long, long ago—so long ago that these particular young girls I saw the other day not only hadn’t been born yet, but some of their mothers probably hadn’t yet been born, either.

Siasconset (also previously known as “Sconset”) is a small town on the eastern end of Nantucket, an island that is further away from shore than Martha’s Vineyard and a bit more rustic, although these days loaded with tourists.

It’s not a famous poem. But it is one of many favorites of mine, for its images, its unusual rhythm, and the way it perfectly evokes scenes such as the one I just described.

I wanted to find the poem, because I had something like a poetic earworm—a few phrases swirling in my head along with the title, although none of it was of any use in an internet search on my smartphone. I thought the poem might be in a book called The Treasury of American Poetry that I’ve owned for over twenty years.

But alas, no “Siasconset Song” could be found there. So, back to the internet, where a very assiduous and nitpicky search revealed the poem to be hiding on the 48th page of this document.

I cannot tell you how happy this made me.

So here it is:

Siasconset Song

The girls
of golden summers whirl
through sunsprung
bright Julys
with born right
sky-bright
star-night
eyes;

everywhere
their tennis twirl
of young gold
legs and arms,
they singsong
summer-long
I-belong
charms;

and through
the summer sailing swirl
they cut like
shining knives
in sun-told
never old
ever gold
lives.

Which brings us almost inevitably to a poem that is linked to that poem in my mind. I don’t know where I first encountered it (perhaps in the same book as the other, whatever that book may be).

This one is much more famous. It’s Ted Roethke’s “Wish For a Young Wife“:

My lizard, my lively writher,
May your limbs never wither,
May the eyes in your face
Survive the green ice
Of envy’s mean gaze;
May you live out your life
Without hate, without grief,
And your hair ever blaze,
In the sun, in the sun,
When I am undone,
When I am no one.

Roethke died not long after he wrote the poem.

[NOTE: Both poems remind me somewhat of the original Portuguese lyrics to the song “The Girl From Ipanema,” which I wrote about at some length here.]

Building a wall at the Mexican border

Posted on August 17, 2015 by neoJanuary 27, 2016

I’m puzzled by so many comments in this thread on Trump’s immigration proposals that seem to be suggesting that I’m saying that a wall—or technically, an expansion of the wall—should not be built or even could not be built.

I certainly am not saying we have no right to build more of the wall or literally could not build more wall. The question is whether it makes sense to do it, and whether it’s the best use of the money that would be appropriated (or in the case of Trump’s proposal, coerced from Mexico, which I don’t see happening).

There are rather severe logistical, financial, and even legal (environmental) objections to a wall that have been among the reasons it’s been so difficult to build one—the other of course being the question of whether there has been enough will to build one. My kneejerk reaction is actually “build the wall anyway,” because they could be overcome. But I don’t discount the objections to that effort as a mere failure of will. The question is not whether to secure the border—we must do so. It’s how best to accomplish it.

What is the most cost-effective method? What are the roadblocks involved in extending the wall (pun originally unintended, but I left it in there)?

Some are listed here; take a look and see what you think:

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding about what a physical barrier””even the triple-layer fencing in San Diego–actually does or doesn’t do for the agency charged with building fencing and securing the border. All it really does is buy you time where a crosser could otherwise quickly escape or assimilate. None of the fencing is impenetrable. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it or go over it, but it gives you enough time to respond and apprehend them. Some fencing makes sense tactically in areas selected by the Border Patrol, as where we deployed some 700 miles of it…and in many of those areas it has been a tool to provide permanent impedance to deter and slow illegal entries on foot or by vehicle.

As we learned, fencing in poor soil, flood plains or sand dunes can also be more expensive than effective, in some places because of terrain challenges we decided spending more than $6 million per mile for specialized fence was not the most effective use of resources to better secure that area of border and opted for more agents and technology there instead. In areas dozens of miles from paved roads where we have time to respond to incursions or where we have natural obstacles of mountains and water that already slow, deter or reroute traffic we don’t need fence at all. Any successful strategy must rely more heavily on highly trained, dedicated law enforcement officers and better technology tools…

The issue to me is not “fence or no fence, wall or no wall” but “what is the best ratio of wall to other types of border security, where to put each type, and how to muster the will and money to do it.” Saying that everyone who questions the extent of a fence is somehow against security is not only counterproductive but simplistic and just plain wrong (although I’m sure that some of them are against it).

[NOTE: Here’s another article on some of the technical problems a fence presents. And here’s a history of some of the legal challenges that have been mounted against it, which caused various delays in construction.]

“Electability” rears its head

Posted on August 17, 2015 by neoAugust 17, 2015

I’m fascinated by assertions such as this one that the conservative candidates for president such as Cruz, Walker, Jindal or Fiorina are not electable on a national scale, each for somewhat different reasons*.

I’ve only been doing this for ten years (ten years!), but one thing I know is that the right wing of the GOP—call it conservative or Tea Party or whatever else you want—has been criticizing the entire concept of “electability” all that time. The argument against it is has been that it’s a ploy of the moderate establishment wing, used in order to get conservatives to go along with RINO establishment GOP candidates, and that conservative aren’t buying it any more.

During the 2012 election, some commenters on this blog were under the impression I used the “electability” argument to push Romney. My response was that they were incorrect; he was not my favored candidate at the outset of the primaries, and once he was nominated I argued that he was actually much more conservative than the right credited him with being, and that I thought he’d make a good president if elected. In fact, I always felt tentative about his chances of winning (his “electability”), and I was rather pessimistic although I tried to fight that feeling.

So this year we have a bunch of very viable conservative candidates. Initially I liked Walker, and I still do, but right now I’m slightly more in favor of Cruz or Fiorina. Any of them would be fine with me.

The argument of the conservative wing in the past for nominating a conservative always went like this: it’s the establishment who use that “electability” thing to block the nomination of a conservative, but a conservative could and would win if he/she were to be nominated over the heads of the establishment, and could articulate the conservative message properly to the people.

Well, the aforementioned foursome have those characteristics. I think that Fiorina and Cruz are the best communicators, with Walker having a regular-guy appeal and a history of conservative action (also quite important) more than eloquence. Jindal is less appealing as a candidate, but not because of his conservatism, it’s because he comes across as nerdy and he talks too fast.

Now some are even suggesting that it’s Trump who is the “electable” one, because of his populist tell-it-like-it-is anger. I really differ on that—I think he will alienate more people than not. But it seems particularly ironic that “electability” would be the argument anyone on the right would use to justify support of a nominee who is neither conservative nor tested nor consistent nor eloquent nor trustworthy. It is particularly ironic because this is the year we have the best slate in memory of articulate conservatives from which to choose.

[* The commenter also asserts that election fraud makes the candidates unelectable, but that only a populist candidate who appeals to the low information voter, such as Trump, would have a chance against it.]

[NOTE: I’m fighting the urge to write so much about Trump. But the reason I’m doing it nevertheless is that his candidacy gets at some important themes and conflicts that have dogged the right since around the middle of the 20th century. It’s not really about Trump, it’s about that conflict.]

[ADDENDUM: By the way, on the topic of Trump and his consistency on immigration, as well as his “anti-establishment” status, reflect that shortly after the 2012 election Trump had some very interesting things to say about the mean Republicans re illegal immigration:

“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”

Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.

“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

Trump is not only mouthing the detested “establishment” line that Republicans should have wooed Hispanics with a kinder gentler policy, but he is wrong about the Democrats as well. When last I checked, Obama’s a Democrat, and in June of 2012 prior to the election he created DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, otherwise known as Dreamers.]

Trump announces his immigration plan

Posted on August 16, 2015 by neoJanuary 27, 2016

Trump’s immigration plan is certainly guaranteed to get him even more attention than before. It’s a nice list of pipe dreams for the most anti-illegal-immigrant wing of the electorate, although it also features some workable and laudable proposals that are certainly not unique to Trump.

Reading the text of Trump’s document reminds me of nothing less than Barack Obama in campaign mode. Not the content, of course—that is very different from Obama—but the process: I will do this, I will do that, while ignoring whether what he suggests is workable, how much it would cost, and how Trump would probably have to don the mantle of dictator to accomplish some of it:

The problem with Trump’s wall is that it is infeasible; the geography of the border simply does not allow for one unbroken wall. Nor would it be effective. Even if you could erect this barrier around, say, Florida, walls can be surmounted, tunneled under, and circumvented in other ways. Policing the border requires police; human capital that comes at taxpayer expense. Mexico will not be paying their salaries, but Trump has a plan for that, too: confiscate all remittances from illegal immigrants working in America and hike the fees on all Mexican tourism and work visas. Erecting the structures necessary to identify much less confiscate illegal wages would prove daunting. Even if it was legal and could survive court challenges, a dubious prospect, this is a policy that would require a dramatic expansion of government’s ability to intrude on the lives of American citizens ”“ a principle to which conservatives were once constitutionally opposed…

The unknown tens of millions of illegal immigrants, some of whom have been here for decades and are part of the fabric of their communities, will be rounded up and sent to their countries of origin. Somehow. In order to do this, Trump would triple the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) forces. ICE presently has an approximately 20,000-strong force, offices in 48 nations, and a $6 billion annual budget. Now triple that, and give them a mandate to arrest and deport all non-citizens…They are to be rounded up, put on a bus, and sent over the border. But only until the “terrific” ones can be identified, amnetized, and reintroduced into the country legally.

The author of that article I just quoted, Noah Rothman at Commentary, thinks Trump’s proposals will hurt Republicans in the election. I don’t agree; I think the jury is out on that. Of course, many Trump supporters would also consider any harm to the GOP as a positive feature rather than a bug.

If I understand Rothman correctly, he also seems to think that Trump is suggesting that birthright citizenship be rescinded retroactively, and that children of illegal immigrants who have become citizens because they were born here should be deported, too. But I see nothing in Trump’s proposal that states that is what he is saying, although I suppose he might be. But he merely writes that he wants to “end birthright citizenship” for children born here of illegal immigrants, which I take as probably meaning he wants this to happen in the future as a disincentive to the arrival of more illegal immigrants.

That’s actually a suggestion that’s been made many times and in several bills introduced by Senator David Vitter of Lousiana (and one that I described and supported about a year ago in this post). However, I wonder whether Trump realizes the legislative and legal hurdles involved, or whether he thinks he can just do it by executive order or imperial decree.

Fiorina sounds tough on immigration

Posted on August 15, 2015 by neoAugust 15, 2015

I’ve seen a lot of blogosphere commenters saying that Trump is the only Republican with a strong policy on illegal immigration. I’ve also seen a lot of people saying they don’t know Carly Fiorina’s position and would like to hear it.

So I thought I’d offer the following video of Fiorina, where I think she’s quite forceful on the subject:

By the way, this is not a new position of hers, post-Trump; you can see here that she had the same position prior to his announcing his candidacy (see also this).

When I wrote a post about Fiorina at Legal Insurrection a little while back, and offered a link to that video, a commenter there replied this way:

Tough? The only *tough* position on illegal immigration would include prison time for the Managers who hire illegals”¦

But you’ll *never* see *that*.

Well, get ready to see it. Note also that this Fiorina video is not recent; it is from her Senate race in California in 2010. That’s a time and place where the stance she expresses could not have been all that popular (proven by the fact that this clip was actually an ad run against Fiorina by the Democrats):

Now, that’s tough.

[NOTE: To refresh your memory, here’s Trump’s position, which seems rather incoherent but essentially the same as the one Fiorina expresses in that first clip. So far I haven’t found any evidence of Trump addressing the issue she deals with in the second clip.]

What a difference a few years make: Trump, then and now

Posted on August 15, 2015 by neoJanuary 27, 2016

In the 2012 election there was a not insignificant amount of ire towards the GOP coming from the GOP base. But in the years since, that anger and frustration has reached a fever pitch.

This may account for odd changes such as the fact that Mark Levin excoriated Trump in this clip from 2011, but now doesn’t sing the same tune although the facts he sets out here have not changed in the least (it’s the topmost clip on the page, the one that’s 12:01 minutes long; I can’t figure out a way to embed it).

You can hear lots of fascinating stuff there. Trump likes Nancy Pelosi (5:14). He wanted her to impeach George W. Bush (5:25), because he says Bush lied about WMDs. At 6:27 he speculates that it would be hard to even imagine a worse president than Bush. At 7:26 you hear Trump saying President Bush is evil. He then contrasts Obama (who at the time he was speaking had been elected but not inaugurated), saying that Obama has:

…a chance to go down as a great president…I think he’s going to lead through consensus. It’s not just going to be just a bull run like Bush did—he just did whatever the hell he wanted—go into a country and attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center, and just do it because he wanted to do it.

Here’s one more clip. In it, Trump has high praise for Hillary Clinton (it’s from 2007, when she was running for president) and sounds as though he was at least thinking of voting for her if she had been nominated:

This man isn’t just not a conservative. He often sounds like a liberal Democrat. Those of you who are supporting Trump, do these clips change your mind at all? Is it really that much fun to give the finger to the GOP, when it’s yourself (and the country) you might be screwing?

More on Ta-Nehisi Coates

Posted on August 15, 2015 by neoAugust 15, 2015

[NOTE: If you don’t know who Ta-Nehisi Coates is and what I think of his work, please see this. I decided to add the following for further clarification.]

When I read this quote from Coates, it seemed to me to provide a basic psychological clue as to what might be going on with him:

My father was so very afraid. I felt it in the sting of his black leather belt, which he applied with more anxiety than anger, my father who beat me as if someone might steal me away, because that is exactly what was happening all around us. Everyone had lost a child, somehow, to the streets, to jail, to drugs, to guns…

When I was 6, Ma and Dad took me to a local park. I slipped from their gaze and found a playground. Your grandparents spent anxious minutes looking for me. When they found me, Dad did what every parent I knew would have done””he reached for his belt. I remember watching him in a kind of daze, awed at the distance between punishment and offense. Later, I would hear it in Dad’s voice””“Either I can beat him, or the police.” Maybe that saved me. Maybe it didn’t. All I know is, the violence rose from the fear like smoke from a fire, and I cannot say whether that violence, even administered in fear and love, sounded the alarm or choked us at the exit.

Coates appears to be saying that violence at the hands of his father and at the hands of the world got all mixed up in Coates’ mind—explicitly mixed up and linked, I might add, when his father would say, “Either I can beat him, or the police.” The larger message was that he would always get beaten at someone’s hands, either parental hands or public official hands via the police, and that his father attributed his own violence towards his son as originating from and being intended to forestall that official violence. His father was claiming that the private violence the father doled out to son was administered to prevent the public violence, both at the hands of the police and by the son or daughter who might be wanting to act in a criminal manner out in the larger and very dangerous world.

I think that Coates is describing some sort of powerful emotional (and also physical) trap that he got caught in early on, as a child, and has never gotten out of. The way it goes is this: I am a small powerless boy, my father whips me, my father loves me, he says he whips me so the others won’t, therefore they are causing my father to hurt me, it is their fault not my father’s, the world is a dangerous and violent place, how can I ever be safe?

The end of religious freedom in the US

Posted on August 15, 2015 by neoAugust 15, 2015

I agree with this article by David Harsanyi:

Not only does the court now apparently hold the power to bore into the souls of shopkeeps to establish that their religious objections aren’t authentic, but it can also decide when their prejudice is. It makes the risible assertion that any theological problem with gay marriage is really just “opposition” to the existence of gay Americans””whatever that means:

“Specifically, Masterpiece asserts that its refusal to create the cake was “because of” its opposition to same-sex marriage, not because of its opposition to their sexual orientation. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and Mullins’ sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece’s refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA.”

A person may have gay friends and relatives”“they may even love their fellow gay Americans”“but if they decline to participate in a same-sex wedding for theological reasons, the court wants us to assume they could only be motivated by bigotry.

In any event, I’m sure there will be an appeal. But since most Americans are fine with gay marriage and simultaneously put off by unpleasant (and in this case, deceptive) words like “discrimination” and “prejudice,” the courts”“nearly always driven by the vagaries of public opinion”“will find a way to force all to comply. This will go for any other businesses even tangentially related to weddings, such as food catering, music, and so on. And the crusade will accelerate until the legal lynch mob gets to religious institutions. No doubt advocates will work backwards to come up with a great legal rationalization for all of it.

Indeed.

With one caveat, however. Harsanyi is correct that courts are driven (in part, anyway) by “the vagaries of public opinion.” But they are also driven by ideology. In the same-sex marriage battle, the courts have been ahead of the public in being pro-same-sex marriage. The most recent poll (February 2015) I was able to find on the matter in a quick search says that the majority of Americans favor a religious exemption like the one the baker in the Masterpiece case was requesting, so here the courts appear to be leading (or opposing) rather than following public opinion.

American Jewry’s fateful hour

Posted on August 14, 2015 by neoAugust 14, 2015

By Caroline Glick.