SCOTUS says states can ban trans athletes from girls’ sports

The New Neo Posted on by

This one seems like a no-brainer, but of course because of politics it’s not.

This is the ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can bar transgender female competitors from playing girls’ sports in a landmark decision with major implications for more than half the country, where such policies are in place.

In a 6-3 opinion, the high court determined that neither Idaho nor West Virginia had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with their bans, as well as that Title IX allowed states to separate sports teams on the basis of biological sex.

What is interesting, though, is that even the three liberal justices weren’t completely onboard with not allowing states to ban trans athletes playing in girls’ sports. They thought states could ban the practice, but only for narrow reasons:

The three liberal justices would have allowed the states to proceed with their bans under a much narrower legal rationale that would have left the laws more susceptible to future challenges.

“West Virginia may well have satisfied its burden and seen its ban upheld. The point, rather, is that this Court’s equal protection precedents require a very different approach … than the one the majority follows today,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. …

The liberals contended that the high court should have just stuck with West Virginia plaintiff Becky Pepper-Jackson’s concession that “sex” under the Title IX statute means “biological sex” assigned at birth, and not decided the constitutional question.

The article states that 27 states have similar bans. It also states this, which I believe is incorrect:

In West Virginia, Pepper-Jackson’s mother fought against the state’s Save Women’s Sports Act after her child underwent gender reassignment surgery during the third grade, prior to going through male puberty.

A lot of minors have undergone “gender reassignment surgery” while still underage. But I have never heard of anyone having it as early as third grade, and Pepper-Jackson did not, either. Pepper-Jackson was treated initially with puberty blockers and then with female hormones, the common practice for males who identify as trans females and want to avoid puberty. I’ve written about this several times; the idea is that once boys undergo male puberty it is very difficult to “pass” as female on matter how much they try (unless they are naturally quite small and slight), but it’s much easier when male puberty is avoided. This has enormous costs, among them the tendency to not be able to experience sexual fulfillment. I consider it a form of child abuse by the medical establishment.

However, the argument is that without having undergone male puberty, a male doesn’t have the testosterone advantage in sports and therefore it would be okay for that person to compete against women. Not so, says this group of pediatricians. The gist of the article – which is long – is that many of the differences between males and females which favor males in athletics occur prior to puberty and do not go away if puberty is blocked and female hormones administered.

SCOTUS issues ruling on birthright citizenship

The New Neo Posted on by

The case for restricting birthright citizenship was and is a good one, in my opinion. But it always seemed like it would be a stretch for SCOTUS to limit it by excluding babies of tourists and illegal aliens, because that would represent a huge change in the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I joined most prognosticators in predicting it wouldn’t happen.

And it hasn’t happened. Roberts and Barrett (no surprise there) joined the liberals in saying that birthright citizenship will stand much as before. The ruling was broad:

Roberts Opinion, joined by Barrett and the liberal block, fully embraces birthright citizenship for all. Children born to women illegally or temporarily in the country “are citizens at birth.”

I think that’s a bad outcome politically – in particular, I think that tourist citizenship is ludicrous and could not have been what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. But I’m unsurprised at the general result of upholding the interpretation as it has come to be implemented.

I do think the ruling could and should have been more narrow. The Court could have just ruled that an executive order was not the way to clarify the meaning of the amendment, and left open the chance that Congress could clarify the 14th by passing a law. This was what Justice Kavanaugh said in his opinion:

In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.

However, it seems to me that the majority opinion has closed off that avenue, at least until the Court hears the issue again (if it ever does). Yes, the Court has indeed “fully embraced” birthright citizenship no matter how bizarre the results and no matter that those who passed the amendment almost certainly did not and could not envision tourist birthright citizenship, in which pregnant women come here briefly for that exact purpose and leave shortly after, conferring citizenship rights on children who have nothing to do with the US and have never lived here except for a few days or weeks as infants, and whose parents have no connection to the US either. It is a travesty, in my opinion. But it stands, and now it seems to me that the only way to change it is through a constitutional amendment.

Actually, I’ve thought for a while that’s what would probably be required. I wrote this post in April, saying as much. I also wrote that such an amendment was unlikely to succeed in being passed, and I still think that is the case – unfortunately. Perhaps if it was explained to the American people, the vast majority would want to ban tourist citizenship. But to get 3/4 of state legislatures to do so? I just don’t see it happening.

This is from Justice Thomas’ dissent, which was joined by Gorsuch:

Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority…. The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war….

The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.

I agree. And this is from Justice Alito:

in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake. As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of “birth tourists,” women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home. Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country….

As a result of the events of the past 50 years, the United States now has a huge contingent of people who entered or remained in this country illegally, as well as a large group of people who were born here to such parents. The Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment makes all the members of this latter group citizens. Many of those who have grown up here now have a strong moral claim to be allowed to remain, but that is a matter that the Fourteenth Amendment, when properly interpreted, leaves to Congress.

It’s a bad decision but an unsurprising one. I am in complete agreement with Justice Alito on this: “we should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment out of fear of the consequences of ‘rocking the boat’ or as a reaction to current immigration policy.” I believe that’s exactly what occurred with Roberts and Barrett – they were afraid of rocking the boat, and they found a way to avoid doing so. For the three liberal justices, their position was a foregone conclusion for political reasons, although of course they justified it with legal arguments.

Much more in this post at Ace’s, which is especially full of quotes from the opinions. The post also adds this from Senator Eric Schmitt:

The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision is wrong, dangerous, and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people. If we can’t fix it with ordinary legislation, then we must do what the Constitution commands in moments of national crisis: We must amend the Constitution and restore American citizenship. We must again put “We the People” first.
The Supreme Court’s decision constitutionalizing unlimited birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and temporarily present aliens is wrong–and disastrous for our sovereignty and the future of our republic.

The decision exposes America to grave national security risks and threatens to erode the integrity of the core of American self-government: citizenship.

I wish him luck.

NOTE: As to the recurring question of why justices who start out seeming as though they will be conservative sometimes end up becoming more liberal as time goes on – well, I don’t think Justice Roberts was ever conservative in the first place. But the more general reason is that it takes very strong adherence to conservative principles of jurisprudence – a commitment to originalist interpretation, for example – to resist the siren call of power. For the most part, justices are smart, and they can find the reasoning to back up the result they want, and they become seduced by power over time.

ADDENDUM: Kurt Schlichter has this optimistic take on the decision.

Also please note my comment here.

Today’s SCOTUS rulings: ballots and agencies

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s the end of June, and that means we hear a lot from SCOTUS. Today we have the following:

Barrett and Roberts join the leftist justices in ruling that states can accept ballots that arrive after Election Day as long as those ballots are postmarked before Election Day. That wouldn’t be a bad idea if in fact the postmark rule was enforced and the postmarks could be validated, but the problem is that there is plenty of evidence that in some states this is not done, and non-postmarked ballots are even accepted. This makes it ripe for fraud occurring after the polls are closed, when the authorities counting the ballots know exactly what they need to put a candidate over the top.

For example:

At least 10 states (California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia) accept ballots with missing or illegible postmarks that arrive after Election Day. …

… election officials can even rely on the date a voter writes on their envelope as evidence a ballot was cast on time.

I have looked, but have so far been unable to determine, whether SCOTUS has stated there must be a postmark of some sort. But my hunch is that they did not, and that they just have deferred to the states and the rules each state has set for that.

From the decision:

…[A] related federal statute, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), confirms that while federal law dictates when ballots must be cast, state law dictates when they must be received….

The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received. The most recent amendment to the Presidential election-day statute bears this out. …

In sum, the election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi. But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.

This result is unsurprising. Roberts was almost certainly going to be averse to challenging the status quo on this issue, and Barrett often follows Roberts. My initial reaction on hearing the ruling was that Trump would renew calls for the SAVE Act. And sure enough, that’s the case.

Another SCOTUS decision announced today is that a president, as head of the executive branch, can fire employees of the executive branch. This would seem obvious, but it had to be made clear. This time, Roberts and his sidekick Barrett ruled with the conservatives to make a 6-3 result. The Federal Reserve is declared an exception, however.

SCOTUS has yet to announce the result of the birthright citizenship case, although it’s supposedly coming soon. I predict they will keep the present policy, and that it will also be 6-3 with Roberts and Barrett being the determining votes going with the liberals. I say this because Roberts tends to preserve the status quo, although of course not always.

But that would be my prediction: that it will take an act of Congress to redefine the policy to exclude tourist birthright citizenship, for example (the current case involves not an act of Congress to do this but an executive order from Trump). If such a statute were to be passed by Congress, would it be ruled constitutional? I think it would probably pass muster, but that depends on the Court’s ruling in the present case in terms of the definition in the 14th Amendment. However, if the right loses Congress in the 2026 midterms, or even if it keeps Congress but fails to end the filibuster for the vote on the subject, such a statute won’t be passed.

On the ever-leftward turning

The New Neo Posted on by

From political changer Sasha Stone:

It’s been ten years since the purges began, and I still have a hard time believing it actually happened. Did so many of my friends really go along with it? Did institutions, corporations, and all of Hollywood allow themselves to be shamefully cowed by the fanatical mob? Yes.

Stone underwent her political change in recent years, and this phenomenon still has the power to surprise her. I experienced it over twenty years ago, and so I’m more used to the idea that most people will follow the tyranny du jour. From my observation, this mentality is more common on the left, but the right is hardly immune. It just takes a different form.

Many years ago I read Dorothy Thompson’s 1941 essay that appeared in Harper’s and was entitled, “Who Goes Nazi?”. It’s a catchy title, isn’t it? Thompson presents it as a parlor game, but a deadly serious one:

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

I have many quarrels with Thompson, and I also disagree with some of what she wrote in the essay. That’s not the subject matter of this post, however. I’m introducing it here because I very much agree with her basic premise, which is that most people are susceptible to totalitarian leanings and to propaganda. In the essay it’s “Nazism” – after all, it was written in 1941. But it’s hardly limited to that; we’re talking about the totalitarian impulse, either “for your own good” which turns into evil, or for outright evil.

Some embrace it wholeheartedly and some half-heartedly, some think they are being virtuous, some are indifferent but go along to get along, some don’t pay any attention, and some do it out of fear. But to defy it takes a great deal of insight and courage.

In addition to the Thompson essay, I sometimes think of the Milgram experiment. This particular post from 2008 explains the phenomenon best. An excerpt:

If you’re unfamiliar with the Milgram experiments, here’s a summary. The gist of it was Milgram’s shocking (literally) finding that ordinary people in this country could be persuaded to inflict what they thought were painful electric jolts to “subjects” (actually, actors) in what was billed as a learning experiment, if an authoritative “researcher” (also an actor) told them it was okay.

This was true for most subjects even if the “victim” was screaming in pain and complained of a weak heart. It was also true if the “doctor” didn’t have a white coat, and was in a lab in a seedier part of town. No actual shocks were administered, but I recall that, in follow-up interviews, most of the subjects thought the shocks were real.

Milgram varied the details of the experiment over and over (read his book if you have time; it’s a masterpiece of its genre), but the results always pointed to the troubling fact that the majority of people failed to “question authority” …

“Authority” can vary. It can, for instance, be some online charlatan whom a person has come to trust. It can be a leftist professor, or a series of leftist professors, at a university. It can be the baying hounds of cancel culture, or the Furies of the “Me Too” witch hunt. It can be Jew-haters of all persuasions. It’s a shape-shifter exploiting a fact of human nature.

Our Founders believed it was possible to create a system of government that would be at least somewhat resistant to these forces. They did the best they could, and they were brilliant men. Perhaps they did the best possible. But no system can guard against the tendency well enough to make tyranny impossible, and the Founders were well aware of that, too.

[NOTE: Sasha Stone’s entire essay is worth reading, and there are some especially good short videos there.]

More on the Venezuelan earthquake: the science, the toll, and the government

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an explanation in terms of earthquake science:

Wednesday’s earthquake was actually two separate ruptures, magnitude 7.2 and magnitude 7.5, that occurred just 39 seconds and 5 kilometers apart in northern Venezuela, killing at least 900 people and injuring thousands more, while causing widespread building damage across the region. The quakes occurred where the Caribbean tectonic plate grinds eastward relative to the South American plate along a multitude of faults. But they didn’t really surprise [Venezuelan earthquake expert]] Audemard. He had seen them coming.

In a 2017 study in Tectonics, he and his colleagues had studied the slip rate of one of the faults within the plate boundary, the Boconó fault, going back thousands of years. They found that the fault had not ruptured since a devastating magnitude 7.1 earthquake in 1812 that leveled Caracas, which meant strain had been accumulating on the fault for 2 centuries. The resulting “slip deficit,” they estimated, was enough to produce a magnitude 7 to magnitude 7.6 earthquake. The earthquake duo that hit this week is like “the 1812 earthquake’s brother,” Audemard says.

And about the fact that there were two earthquakes so close together in time and location:

Back-to-back “doublet” earthquakes are not uncommon. Higgins [geophysicist at Florida International University] says the stresses released by rupture along one segment of the fault probably triggered an adjacent segment’s rupture. But the short time gap between the two—less than 1 minute—seems exceptional, says Germán Prieto, a seismologist at the National University of Colombia. Doublets such as the 2023 Kahramanmara? earthquake in Turkey or the 1997 Kagoshima earthquake in Japan were separated by hours or days. The short interval between Wednesday’s shocks makes disentangling the signals particularly complicated for seismologists, and helps explain why the quake locations have been hard to pin down.

But at the moment, the science of the quakes is the least of Venezuela’s worries. The death toll is large, but it’s not only that. As with many earthquakes, there are earthquake survivors who were trapped in the rubble and who will die soon (or already have) without rescue. Now and then there’s a feel-good story such as this one, which reports a father and son rescued after four days. But such tales are not common, despite rescue teams from varied countries.

There are also many aftershocks still occurring. and the death toll at present is 1700 and rising, with estimates that go above 10,000.

And the Venezuelan government is being blamed, not for the earthquake itself but for problems with the response:

According to [Venezuelan pollster] Chirinos, public outrage is especially intense toward the armed forces, police and senior Chavista officials, including Delcy Rodríguez, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez.

He said one of the biggest grievances centers on allegations that authorities obstructed humanitarian aid collected by civilians during the critical first hours after the disaster.

“The two biggest sources of anger are clear,” Chirinos said. “First, the obstruction of aid organized by ordinary citizens. Second, the inaction—or worse—of the armed forces.”

Videos circulating on social media over the weekend showed residents confronting military personnel, accusing them of standing by while civilians carried out rescue operations with little official assistance.

In some videos, survivors accused soldiers of looting apartments and confiscating donated supplies—claims that remain difficult to independently verify but have fueled widespread outrage.

The armed forces, already burdened by years of public distrust, now face what analysts say could be a near-total collapse in legitimacy.

Not surprising. It’s a terrible, terrible situation, and Venezuelans had already been through a lot before this.

Recent socialist wins in US elections – how it began: Part I

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is the first part of a planned 2-part series.]

Last Tuesday was not the first time socialists have won elections in the US, but until recently most of those elections occurred close to a hundred years ago (see this). And for the most part the candidates ran as Socialists, not Democrats, and fit the mold of more conventional socialism as well.

More recently, Bernie Sanders ran as an Independent, beginning in the 1970s (first for mayor of Burlington, then for US Congress, than as US senator from Vermont), even though he is “self-described democratic socialist.”

The most recent pattern goes even further, because as far as I can tell all the DSA candidates who won last Tuesday (and Mamdani before them), and those of a few years ago (such as AOC), ran not as Socialists or Independents but as Democrats. They are also even more radical than the ones who came before. The approach is to choose a low-turnout primary election in a deep blue city and field an extremely radical candidate who will run as a Democrat and who is often chosen for physical attractiveness and youth. Often, although not always, the candidates themselves and/or their parents have apparent 3-world immigrant roots. The idea is to challenge the old guard and win, often with a tiny percentage of the voters, the win being possible because the turnout is so low.

I watched a video after the New York primaries the other day, and although I no longer can find that video it featured interviews with people in the districts where the DSA radicals won. They were flabbergasted and distressed, but all but one of them said they hadn’t voted. Unfortunately, the interviewer didn’t ask them why they had failed to vote, and so we can only speculate. But it was clear that they hadn’t quite realized what was going on until it was too late. They were all Democrats, by the way, and even moderately leftist. But they did not like these candidates.

Another thing that wasn’t asked of them was whether they would be willing to vote for these candidates’ Republican opponents in the general election. But I bet their answer would be “no” if they were to be honest.

As best I can recall, this sort of approach to fielding very radical candidates began with the Soros-backed DAs in blue areas. They slipped in somewhat under the radar in a similar way. Soros (and others; I doubt he was alone in this) had the rather brilliant idea of targeting low-turnout primaries for DA in places where the Democrat nominee invariably wins, and so the key to a victory was gaming the primary vote. As best I can tell, this tactic began in 2015 (the linked article was written in August 2016):

While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system.

The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.

His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.

Prior to that, as far as I know, most DA candidates were at least somewhat tough on crime, or campaigned that way. It was part of the concept of a DA: these were head prosecutors, after all. Voters weren’t especially energized and probably had no idea that this time was very very different. In fact, one difference was that – according to the article – prior to the 2015 push, 85% of DA candidates ran unopposed. Some of these Soros prosecutors ended being booted and some are still in place, but I wager that all of them have harmed their communities.

This Soros push was very well-researched and well-orchestrated. The people running the show are not at all dumb:

Prosecutorial discretion gives district attorneys a huge say in the charges and sentences that defendants face. But reform efforts have not traditionally focused on harnessing that power.

“They are often a very invisible part of the criminal justice system and the political system,” said Brenda Carter, director of the Reflective Democracy Campaign, an arm of the progressive Women Donors Network. “Many people can’t name their district attorney. It’s not an office people think about a lot.

Ripe for the picking, obviously.

More:

… “I think people are waking up to the untapped potential for intervention in these seats to really change the day-to-day realities of criminal justice,” Carter said. “It’s been really gratifying for us to see the research taken up and run with by different groups around the country.”

Armed with that knowledge, progressive groups including Color of Change began researching potentially interesting district attorney races around the country, multiple sources said. (The organization declined to comment.)

“It’s hard to find this information!” exclaimed Steele, the Emerge America president. “You can’t just Google ‘hot DA races.’ So part of the issue is identifying what potential races there are.”

They certainly succeeded in doing so.

That same approach was used in 2018 for one of the very first carefully-chosen DSA candidates for a federal position: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Young (29 at the time), energetic, and telegenic, she managed a primary victory in New York’s 14th Congressional district that was shocking, defeating Joe Crowley, a powerful (10-term) US House member who was the Democratic Caucus chair. This set the template for subsequent victories over Democratic establishment figures, one that expanded and which we see occurring today, especially in New York.

AOC was not alone, either. She was part of the “Squad,” who all entered Congress that year, the others being Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. All women, all relatively young and energetic as well. The group has since expanded. Not all were or had been DSA-sponsored (Omar and Pressley were not), but they almost undoubtedly are supporters of the same or similar principles, and:

At least three Squad members provided fundraising and volunteer assistance during the other members’ campaigns.

It was AOC who gave the group the moniker “the Squad,” which has stuck.

I believe that it was with AOC that I first became aware of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) designation and realized that it had become a force with which Democrats would need to contend. It’s no accident some of this is happening in New York, either – as have the recent DSA victories of even more radical candidates. New York is the DSA’s headquarters.

And the earlier history of the DSA is the subject of a planned Part II.

Rubio speaks on the topic of the Iran MOU

The New Neo Posted on by

I was waiting to hear from Rubio on this. Ignore the silly clickbait title:

Rubio’s attitude and the tenor of his message contrasts at least somewhat with that of Vance. Rubio seems more realistic to me in terms of what he’s saying. Of course, neither is in charge; Trump is. And the Rubio/Vance contrast – which is more one of emphasis, I think – may be intentional, with Rubio presenting to Iran as the “bad cop” and Vance the “good cop.”

The video isn’t all that long. But it highlights the important bits, with commentary. I watched it like I watch most talking heads videos: speeded up. But if you don’t have the patience to watch, here’s a very short excerpt I think is important. Rubio has a very clear way of stating things; here he’s asked about the attitude of the current Iranian leaders and whether they are religious fanatics:

No wonder Brits here for the World Cup sometimes praise our air conditioning

The New Neo Posted on by

I had noticed that a number of those YouTube paeans to the wonders of the USA mention the fabulous air conditioning that seems to be ubiquitous here. This puzzled me a bit, but article such as this go a long way towards explaining it:

Homeowners are being forced to tear out air conditioning from their private properties under climate laws, despite rising temperatures.

Council planning officers ordered residents to remove air-con units over fears they produce too much carbon dioxide, stating they should only be used as a “last resort”.

The net zero clampdown is part of building regulations that state “active cooling” should only ever be allowed when all other means of “passive cooling”, such as opening windows or using fans, have been exhausted.

The Tories said Britain was being “kept in the dark ages” under a net zero mindset that denies people “modern conveniences that are completely normal in other countries”.

It’s not happening everywhere in Britain, but it’s happening. And it’s a reminder that the commitment to liberty in Britain and in much of Europe is lukewarm at best.

Of course, our own leftists are salivating at the chance to do the same here – to exercise more and more control over every aspect of people’s lives “for our own good.”

Plus, Europe has been experiencing a heat wave of major proportions:

Temperatures soared to record highs from Switzerland to the Czech Republic and Denmark on Saturday, as a heat wave that baked western European countries this week moved to central and eastern parts of the continent.

Unusually high temperatures were recorded even in the Nordic countries not known for sweltering summers. Denmark’s Meteorological Institute reported a record 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in Ødum north of Aarhus — the warmest day since records there began in 1874. …

Germany’s famous Autobahn was overwhelmed, too, as temperatures were expected to hit 40 C (104 F). In two places outside Berlin, the concrete of the A2 burst due to the high temperatures and the highway had to be closed. …

The Czech Republic also saw its hottest day on record, with 40.8 C (105.4 F) in the northern town of Doksany. Forecasters said it may still rise.

That’s hot, all right. But in the US, not all that unusual. Even the New England states reach high levels at times, with record highs generally more in the 105-107 vicinity.

As a young child, I lived without air conditioning in New York, in a home that didn’t have much cross-ventilation. It was pretty brutal at times in the summer. I also remember that a lot of homes had awnings on the windows that went up in the summer, to create at least a slightly cooling effect. On very hot days, sometimes we’d go to the movies – thirty-five cents admission – because they were usually air conditioned. Ah, the relief!