[Hat tip: commenter “huxley”]
Nikki Haley discourses on the Civil War
Here’s the brouhaha du jour – when asked by a questioner what the cause of the Civil War was, Nikki Haley inexplicably failed to mention slavery:
I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And we will always stand by the fact that I think the government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people,” Haley said. “It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom.”
I suppose that last sentence, about government needing “to make sure that you have freedom,” could be interpreted as an oblique reference to ending slavery. But it’s a very very odd way to put it.
Readers of this blog know I’m neither a Haley fan nor a Haley hater. And I do think this was a stupid response and a rambling one. But being a candidate means that you have to be perfect all the time; Haley isn’t, and most aren’t.
I also recall from my own history lessons that even historians argue about how prominent slavery was as a cause for the Civil War. States’ rights was a biggee, as well as the preservation of the Union, economic issues, and probably more. Nevertheless, if I recall correctly, most agree that ending slavery was also a potent factor and that Union soldiers’ letters home reflect that perception on their part.
Haley seems to be explaining something of the sort in an effort at damage control:
“Of course, the Civil War was about slavery,” said Haley at a Thursday town hall in New Hampshire. “We know that. That’s unquestioned. Always the case. We know the Civil War was about slavery.”
Haley continued to elaborate, telling the crowd that the war was about more than that.
“It was about the freedoms of every individual,” she said. “It was about the role of the government. For 80 years, America had the decision and the moral question of whether slavery was a good thing and whether government economically, culturally, any other reasons, had a role to play in. By the grace of God, we did the right thing and slavery is no more. But the lessons of what the bigger issue with the Civil War is that let’s not forget what came out of that, which is government’s role, individual liberties, freedom for every single person, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do and be anything you want to be without anyone in government getting in our way.”
I don’t quite see how that last sentence follows.
Now Trump is being likened to Osama bin Laden and 1/6 to 9/11
And not by some random tweeter, either. The characterization is by Tim Heaphy, who was the chief investigative counsel for the January 6 committee in the House:
In respect, with respect to 9/11, the commission found that there were failures of U.S. intelligence that perhaps should have been more acutely aware of the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. But that did not absolve Osama bin Laden and his conspirators from flying planes into the World Trade Center.
Very similarly, here we found that, sure, there were failings of law enforcement to share information, to operationalize the intelligence they had about the prospect of violence.
None of that absolves the proximate cause of the attack on the Capitol, which was President Trump and his co-conspirators.
Fabulous analogy. Can’t think of a better one. The idea is that intelligence was ignored, but the subtle suggestion is that the events were both very violent and that Trump and bin Laden were both masterminds orchestrating the violence.
While we’re at it – although this is entirely unrelated – the WaPo is now helping to spread a blood libel against the Jews, in the guise of a quote from “Palestinian officials”:
Palestinian officials said Tuesday that Israel had returned the bodies of 80 people it had held during the Gaza war via the Kerem Shalom border crossing. The Hamas-run government media office said Israel had not identified the bodies or said where they had been taken from. They had been “mutilated,” the media office said in a statement, and there were “clear” indications that organs had been “stolen” from the corpses.
The claims could not be independently verified.
Hey WaPo, whatever happened to your favorite adjective for just about any claim by the right, “debunked”? Instead, they use the old “couldn’t be independently verified,” which is very weak sauce. At least they mention that the media office is “Hamas-run.” But why report this at all? During World War II, did they quote Goebbels’ claims on a daily basis, with only the “could not be independently verified” disclaimer?
As Stacey Matthews points out in her LI post, you can’t harvest useful organs from people who are already dead in a battle somewhere.
[NOTE: The “Israelis harvest Palestinian organs” claim is an old one that’s gotten a great deal of mileage in the past. Here’s the history; it’s based on a kernel of truth about the failures to get some families’ informed consent for the tissue harvesting of hospital patients – most definitely including Israelis, although some Palestinians were also involved – that ended in the 1990s when far more stringent rules were implemented.]
RIP Tommy Smothers
Tommy Smothers has died at the age of 86. I was an early fan, having seen him and his brother on some variety show or other, doing their number, “Chocolate.” I was a kid and I howled with laughter. They went on to have their own variety show, but it was their earlier work that intrigued me. We even had their record, which I memorized. They specialized in mocking folk songs.
Tommy never stepped out of character as the “dumb, naive” one, and his comic timing was impeccable. Many of his obituaries focus on the political messages of the brothers’ show, but that’s not what I remember about them at all.
Here they are in “Chocolate”:
RIP.
Must-see videos on the Gaza war
[NOTE: If you’re impatient like me, click on “settings” for each video and increase the speed. They will still be intelligible, and they will go much faster.]
The following is one of Caroline Glick’s best, and that’s saying a lot. It may even be her best. It’s on the topic of the shift in public opinion in Israel towards a huge majority rejecting the 2-state solution, and that includes 70% of those on the left who previously believed in it:
This next one is about the Biden administration’s strange idea that the PA should get a role in running Gaza after the war:
And this is a chilling one about the role of NGOs in fanning the flames of Jew-hatred over the years:
Open thread 12/28/23
Pointe shoes were only very lightly blocked back then, which gives a different look and technique entirely – the dancer merely poises, alighting for a moment:
Price herself was apparently the model for the statue of The Little Mermaid in Copenhagen.
This video, also from the early 1900s, illustrates the same thing about the pointe shoes. This dancer has a very strong jump:
Jack Smith – always making with the jokes
Yes, I’m well aware that Jack Smith wasn’t meaning this filing as a joke. But it certainly reads like one:
The 20-page motion also argues that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to complain that the trial would interfere with his presidential campaign and that any arguments of this type should be forbidden.
“In addition to being wrong, these allegations are irrelevant to the jury’s determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence,” Smith wrote, “would be prejudicial if presented to the jury, and must be excluded.”
Smith’s prosecution of Trump is obviously political and has obvious effects on Trump’s campaign schedule if it’s allowed to start when Smith would like: March 4, 2024. But Smith is doing what lawyers do – asking for the moon and hoping to get some of what he asks. With a friendly judge, he may get quite a bit of it.
Smith is also afraid that Trump will use the trial as a bully pulpit to point out the obvious discrimination against him, and that this will backfire on the anti-Trump forces. Maybe Smith should have thought of that in the first place.
Harvard: Larry Summers; Claudine Gay
There is no better illustration of the extremity of Harvard’s double standards based on identity politics than the difference between the school’s treatment of Harvard presidents Larry Summers and Claudine Gay. Summers probably could never even be chosen as Harvard’s president in the post-Floyd post-COVID world – a white Jewish male with strong scholarly credentials who, although not on the right, couldn’t be said to be on the left, either. And yet from July 2001 until June 2006 – seems like long ago, doesn’t it? – he was indeed the president of Harvard.
Summers left under a cloud. One of his moves that offended the left, even before the incident that caused his downfall, was that he attacked one of Harvard’s third rails – black professor/celebrity Cornel West:
In an October 2001 meeting, Summers criticized African American Studies department head Cornel West for allegedly missing three weeks of classes to work on the Bill Bradley presidential campaign and complained that West was contributing to grade inflation. Summers also claimed that West’s “rap” album was an “embarrassment” to the university. West pushed back strongly against the accusations.”The hip-hop scared him. It’s a stereotypical reaction”, he said later.
So West was accusing Summers of being a typical white person, even before Obama perfected that sort of accusation and its acceptability when it came from a black person.
Summers was not fired, but a no-confidence vote from the faculty convinced him to resign. Among the reasons was the West incident, plus:
… financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he offered three reasons for the under-representation of women in science and engineering, including the possibility that there exists a “different availability of aptitude at the high end”, in addition to patterns of discrimination and socialization.
It was really that latter incident – his speech about the paucity of women at the very highest and most rarified levels of science – that sealed his doom. I wrote two long posts about the brouhaha at the time, and I urge you to read them if you’ve forgotten some of the details (see this as well as this). From the latter:
… [T]his [the outraged reaction to Summers’ remarks about women in science] is a case where feelings seem to have triumphed over reason. That academics – and scientists, at that – would allow this to happen is not a good sign. Whatever happened to the Enlightenment? If Galileo were to return at this point, he might be in grave danger again – at least, if he were to suggest that the earth didn’t revolve around women.
In my own experience in an academic environment during the ’90s, after decades of being away, I was shocked at how far the PC police had come in stifling academic freedom. It seemed the new criterion for censure was whether a remark had offended someone. However careful the professor might be to couch the remark with qualifications, however delicately it was stated, if it offended the tender sensibilities of anyone in the audience, the professor was in trouble. …
The first reports of the reaction to his remarks contain the following gem from MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, “I felt I was going to be sick…My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset.”
I assume that, as a scientist, Ms. Hopkins had other, more rationally-based objections to Summer’s remarks. But I have yet to read any that make sense. How could anyone have a rational objection to Summer’s call for research into this question? Unless that person were afraid of the truth.
As far as Claudine Gay goes, you might say that she is the un-Summers – not much of a scholar (as well as probable plagiarizer), leftist, black, and a woman. The very reasons Summers had to go were the reasons she got the job. But unlike Summers, Gay has been strongly supported by the Harvard faculty, despite the fact that her academic work seems at least partly bogus, and her offensive remarks were far more offensive than his. All of a sudden, Harvard is interested in free speech – but it very much depends on the identity of the person doing the speaking and the group the person is referencing.
Quite some time ago, the left established – first in academia, but then it spread – that a member of a favored identity group (such as a black person) could not be racist no matter what that person said. Claudine Gay is protected by that sort of “reasoning.”
One of the most interesting things about what’s happening (or not happening) to Gay now is how clearly it reveals to the American public the academic rot that was noticed long ago by those of us who’ve been paying special attention. Harvard is in a bind, and it must choose. If it keeps Gay, its reputation with the general public sinks. If it fires her or encourages her to resign, it betrays its leftist principles.
[NOTE: Gay’s predecessor was also a white Jewish male, but he seems to have been a conventional leftist and he resigned, perhaps to make way for someone more in line with identity politics like Gay. That’s speculation on my part, but I’ve not yet read anything that explains his resignation except the boilerplate line that he wanted to spend more time with his family.]
Nuclear enrichment: Iran is up to no good
Of course, Iran has been up to no good since the theocracy began. Thanks, Jimmy!
But here’s the latest:
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in the report that Iran “in recent weeks had increased its production of highly enriched uranium, reversing a previous output reduction from mid-2023,” according to an IAEA spokesperson Sunday. …
In January, Grossi had warned that Tehran already had enough nuclear material for “several” weapons. “They have amassed enough nuclear material for several nuclear weapons — not one at this point,” he said, listing 70 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity and 1,000 kilograms at 20%.
That has to refer to last January, since we’re not in January of 2024 yet.
“The picture is pretty bleak, but the fact at the moment is that there is no appetite to provoke a reaction in Iran in the context of the war in the Middle East,” a senior diplomat told AFP in November about the current deadlock on Iran’s nuclear activity.
In the context of that war, does anyone doubt that Iran is pulling at least some of the strings? Is there any doubt that the Biden administration’s financial largesse towards Iran has facilitated that generosity on Iran’s part? And, most importantly, is there any doubt that Iran would be willing to use nuclear weapons on Israel?
It’s that last question that probably has some people saying, “Yes, of course there’s doubt on that, because it would be suicide for Iran.” I submit that it would only be partial suicide, and the mullahs are more than willing to accept that if it means destroying Israel. Plus – although in a quick search right now I can’t find the quote, but it’s from years ago and I’ve written about it before – an Iranian leader once pointed out that the country has a large population and even though a huge number of Iranians would die from Israeli retaliation to a nuclear attack, enough would survive that Iran would not be destroyed although Israel would cease to be. It seemed like a favorable and acceptable calculus to him.
Perhaps he’s wrong, of course. Perhaps Iran would be utterly wiped out. But perhaps the mullahs, with their focus on the next world, would accept even that possibility.
If October 7 told us one thing, it’s that jihadis are more than willing to wipe out the Jews. They are in fact eager to do so. In addition, they are more than willing to sacrifice their own people in the great cause of eliminating the little Satan (Israel) – or the big Satan (the US), if possible, although they can’t accomplish the latter yet. One of the strangest things that the war in Gaza illustrates is that one side – Israel – is trying its best to prevent civilian casualties on both sides, while the other side – Hamas – is trying its best to amass civilian casualties on both sides.
Iran is not Gaza. However, it is presently allied with Gaza, and it shares its genocidal intent and its willingness to sacrifice at least some of its own people in the glorious pursuit of killing the Jews and finalizing the Final Solution to the best of its ability.
[NOTE: Also please see this.]
Open thread 12/27/23
I’ve noticed a lot of this among my friends, so here are some tips:
Roundup
(1) How are you feeling, post-Christmas? Are you ready for 2024?
(2) The NY Times continues its trajectory as a pro-Palestinian pro-Hamas anti-Israel propaganda organ by publishing an op-ed by Gaza’s mayor. So much better than publishing something by Tom Cotton!
(3) Carol Swain – the black scholar from whom Claudine Gay plagiarized – weighs in in the NY Post:
I am fervently committed to advancing diversity, equal opportunity – not equity – and inclusion, resulting in a policy that can promote true integration and respect of individuals in American institutions and society. True diversity comes through the practice of nondiscrimination, outreach, and compliance with existing civil rights law and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Honoring the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion can and should result in diversity of thought and goodwill among diverse groups of people. Institutions can and should abide by the First Amendment. Institutional leaders should encourage and promote the simple but enduring tenets of the Golden Rule: treat others how you would like them to treat you.
This approach truly does work. I speak as a person who started life in poverty, dropped out of middle school, married at age 16, and had three children before I turned 21. And yet I found success.
Maybe Swain could be elected president of Harvard. Ah, but there’s a problem – she’s not on the left.
(4) As if California didn’t already have enough money troubles, now Newsom has announced that “the last hole in universal [Medi-Cal] coverage, people aged 26-49, is being filled in the New Year, and the expansion is being aggressively marketed, Medi-Cal will soon be open to all, ‘papers or no papers.’” Medi-Cal is basically California’s Medicaid.
(5) Israel has killed a senior officer in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard in a strike on Syria, and Iran “vows revenge.” Hasn’t Iran already vowed Israel’s destruction? Hasn’t it done so for about as long as the Iranian theocracy has been in power?
The war on Christmas won’t be earning popularity points for the pro-Hamas crowd
To whom is this sort of “protest” supposed to appeal? I’m referring to disruptions of Christmas events by pro-Hamas groups (see the link for details; there are plenty).
I don’t think the demonstrations frighten anyone for more than a moment, and they probably make enemies of some people who might ordinarily be more sympathetic. I suppose the disruptions appeal to those who are already onboard with support for the genocidal jihadis, but is there anyone else who might be moved towards support? I really can’t think of any group.
Or maybe the point is merely “performative.” That is, perhaps the people doing this get off on it, and that’s the most important thing of all. It makes them feel powerful and active and as though they’re changing the world. As best I can recall from my formative years in the 1960s, that was always a big draw for a lot of activists.