Raping Justice

Senator Chuck Grassley

And so we all wait, with bated breath, to see whether Dr. Blasey Ford will deign to speak with the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Personally, I doubt it, mostly because her motives might come out. But I’m no expert, nor do I want to be. Who is? Probably as much as anyone, R.S. McCain is, and he wrote about it in The American Spectator yesterday. Let’s take a look.

Where were you in the spring of 1982? Can you verify your whereabouts and produce evidence to establish that you weren’t molesting prep-school girls in suburban Maryland? Christine Blasey Ford insists she’s a victim and, while the main suspect is Brett Kavanaugh, perhaps no man can be entirely sure he won’t be summoned before the Senate Judiciary Committee in some future investigation.

Feminist “rape culture” discourse, which has sowed a climate of sexual paranoia on university campuses in recent years, has escaped its native habitat and is now wreaking havoc in our politics, to say nothing of its damaging effect on our culture. Do I want to discuss what allegedly happened at a party in Montgomery County, Maryland, on an unspecified night in 1982? Do you want to read such a discussion? Do any of us want to watch such a claim litigated on national TV with Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser testifying in front of a Senate panel, with cable-news pundits endlessly rehashing every angle of the sordid saga day after day?

No, we don’t. Particularly since it is apparent that while somebody may have attacked Dr. Ford, this entire attack is nothing but politics and a further unhinged scream of rage that Donald Trump is President.

One who sees clearly, perhaps because this is even more prevalent in the UK, is Laura Perrins, Co-Editor of The Conservative Woman. She notes:

First, the allegation is serious – namely that Kavanaugh held down Ford, groped her, attempted to remove her clothes and covered her mouth when she tried to call out. As I said, they were both minors at the time. However, secondly, and let’s be clear, there is no way this allegation can be seriously or fairly challenged either in a court of law (it is 36 years ago and I believe out of time under statute of limitations) or in the Senate politically. [Maryland, where the incident supposedly took place, apparently doesn’t have a statute of limitations, but that isn’t relevant, really. The Democrats, and Ford, don’t want justice, they want Kavanaugh destroyed. Neo]

The Democrats have set up a checkmate scenario here: any challenge by the Republicans against the testimony of an event that happened 36 years ago will be seen as bullying and harassing victims of sexual assault. In the #MeToo era this is toxic. As CNN gleefully pointed out: ‘If Republican senators attempt to impugn her character, they will disgrace themselves in the eyes of the American people.’Checkmate.

In sum, Kavanaugh is seriously limited in his defence. In fact many on the Left are saying that, as it will be men asking questions of the accuser, this disqualifies them straight off. So if the Judiciary committee don’t call Ford, they are not taking the allegation seriously. If they do call Ford, they are disqualified from asking her any questions by the mere fact of being men. Checkmate.

Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary committee, could have brought this to the attention of the committee and FBI weeks ago. Instead she kept quiet, knowing it would leak eventually. And so the media circus continues and the show trial begins. Where were you, Brett Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, at a time we can’t specify, on a day we can’t specify, in a place we can’t specify? If this sounds Kafkaesque, it’s because it is.

One of the reasons I love ConWom is because of plain common sense like this, and she’s right, there is no way out? Or is there. Gateway Pundit tells us that Sen Grassley laid down the law yesterday.

“It is not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this,” Grassley wrote, “The FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee.”

“You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story. I sincerely hope that Dr. Ford will accept my invitation to do so, either privately or publicly, on Monday. In the meantime, my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her,” said Grassley.

“The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominee and consenting to the nomination if the circumstances merit. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone”

The short form of that is well known to all Americans of my generation: “Put up or shut up”. And that is the key. Conservatives have allowed the left to bully us for decades, and of course, they have taken advantage. When we elected President Trump we gave conservatives permission to fight back. And that is the key. Bullies stop bullying when they get a few sharp punches to the nose. You know it, I know it, we all know it. It’s time and past time for a brawl on this playground.

R.S. McCain ends this way:

Whether Ford’s accusation is true or not, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein orchestrated the leak and subsequent release of Ford’s letter, not merely to sink Kavanaugh and level accusations in a way that would make it difficult for the judge to defend himself, but also to try and delay Republican efforts to confirm any nominee until after the midterms.”

There is only one possible way to resolve this. “We the People of the United States” are still sovereign in our national affairs, and the verdict in the case of Ford v. Kavanaugh will not come from the senators in the hearing room, but from the people themselves on Nov. 6. May God grant us the wisdom to judge rightly.

Amen. From his keyboard to God’s eye. I think the people will. If the Senate caves to this bullying, well, they will never have another chance to put a solid Constitutionalist on the Court. This is the last trench, the battle must be won.

And you know, even Sens. Flake, Collins, and Corker appear to be on board. Maybe they, like us, have finally figured out that enough is enough.

Advertisements

Down the Memory Hole

Yesterday, we talked about overt thought-crime in England. Today for something different we will speak of the suppression of scientific research, for political reasons in the United States.

Joy Pullman wrote an article earlier this week, in The Federalist, outlining the difficulties encountered by an author who published a paper highlighting that men are both more intelligent and less intelligent than women. In other words: different. It’s a fascinating subject, reaching back to an unresolved question that Darwin himself raised. Here’s some of it.

study exploring Darwinian reasons there are both more highly intelligent and intelligence-deficient men than women was actively suppressed by professors at prestigious universities, all for merely discussing the reality that the sexes are different, says the study’s coauthor. A journal editor and professor at Smith College told him it was repressed because several academics worried about the “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.”

That has to be about the most stupid possible reason not to publish in the history of knowledge – the wrong people might read it. It can only make sense if one believes that one’s political opponents are more intelligent than one is. The truth is the truth, it does not need political support – but lies do.

And so what has happened? Right (and not-so-right) wing media have picked up not only the article but its attempted suppression and are hyping it internationally. As it should be.

After the study had been yanked from acceptance at MI [Mathematical Intelligencer], an editor at the New York Journal of Mathematics offered to review it for publication. It was accepted there, and published online. Just three days later, however, the study was deleted from its online location after a University of Chicago senior math professor and her husband launched another round of complaints, and a different study was swapped into its place at the same link. It’s like the study was never there.

Hill writes at Quillette of his discussion with a NYJM editor about the deletion:

I pointed out that if the deletion were permanent, it would leave me in an impossible position. I would not be able to republish anywhere else because I would be unable to sign a copyright form declaring that it had not already been published elsewhere. Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and ‘harass the journal’ he had founded 25 years earlier ‘until it died.’ Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated.

The earlier journal editor who had also encouraged and conveyed the acceptance of the paper, then wrote back to say it had been subsequently un-accepted, told Hill “she had received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. By way of further explanation, [Marjorie] Senechal even compared our paper to the Confederate statues that had recently been removed from the courthouse lawn in Lexington, Kentucky.”

You really should read the whole thing. It’s both fascinating and terrifying.

But this particular study, while useful, is unlikely to cost lives, even if it is memory-holed but what of others? Joy continues:

As Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, writes in a preface to an NAS study about modern science’s irreproducibility crisis, “the inability of science to discern truth properly and its politicization go hand in hand.”

The NAS study from April notes that hard-science researchers believed they could insulate themselves from the corruption of identity politics that is now endemic to academia. By now that has been well disproved. It is becoming increasingly common for even hard science research to be aborted in utero. I just wrote last week about how Ivy League Brown University took a study about transgender children off its website and chastised the author rather than the memory-hole contingent.

That one being memory-holed will very likely cost lives, and mental health, given the appalling suicide rate among trans-genders.

[…] Back to the NAS [National Associaciation of Scholars] study:

Findings from experimental work or observational studies turn out, time and again, to be irreproducible. The high rates of irreproducibility are an ongoing scandal that rightly has upset a large portion of the scientific community. Estimates of what percentage of published articles present irreproducible results vary by discipline. Randall and Welser cite various studies, some of them truly alarming. A 2012 study, for example, aimed at reproducing the results of 53 landmark studies in hematology [blood medicine] and oncology [cancer treatment], but succeeded in replicating only six (11 percent) of those studies [emphasis added].

If bad results are not scrutinized early, they can infect their entire subject matter with dangerous falsehoods. Here’s an example also from the NAS study.

In March 2017 a graduate student named Tim van der Zee calculated that critics had already made serious, unrebutted allegations about the reliability of 45 of [a certain researcher’s] publications. Collectively, these publications spanned twenty years of research, had appeared in twenty-five different journals and eight books, and—most troubling of all—had been cited more than 4,000 times. Wansink’s badly flawed research tainted the far larger body of scientific publications that had relied on the accuracy of his results.

In hematology, deep in the heart of medicine, and cancer treatment, the studies are unreliable. Doesn’t bode well for our healthcare, does it?

Joy ends with this:

This set of interlinked phenomena create a dangerous feedback loop where fraud begets fraud, and people — and civic institutions, perhaps even ultimately societies — die. The answer to corruption is not more corruption, of course. It is integrity. If our nation’s leaders and institutions will not provide it, then it is time for a new generation of leaders and institutions to prepare to be worthy to take their places. That means me, it means you, it means us, and now.

That’s a good summary, to which I have little to add, at least that is printable.

 

Thoughtcrime in England

Well, we haven’t talked too much about Britain lately. Partly because we have an election coming up, and I agree it may be the most important midterm in our lifetimes, and so we are thinking a good bit about it. But Britain offers us a glimpse of what’s in store for us if we lose, and it ain’t pretty. Jonathan Turley, who is no one’s idea of a conservative, wrote a few days ago:

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech. Now the South Yorkshire police department is making it clear that it does not just want citizens to report crimes but “incidents” involving offensive or insulting comments. This follows an effort to make wolf whistles a crime in England.

His words are true, and they are important, but what struck me on reading this is the sheer number of links on the loss of free speech in Britain. I count it as eleven that he considered important enough to write about. That is shocking and shameful, especially in a country that once led the world in freedom.

Professor Turley wrote this time about the South Yorkshire Police, the very same bunch that covered up the organized mass rape, drugging, prostitution, and sex trafficking of white, underage, Christian girls by (mostly) Muslim gangs. I refuse to use the word grooming because I consider it nothing but a politically correct euphemism to hide the horrendous nature of the practice.

Now, we are informed, they want us to:

“In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it.”

Which is, of course, arrant nonsense, and merely designed to make people afraid to voice their opinions or even facts that are verified, for fear of being reported to the police. And yes, the BBC, and almost all other media, print and electronic, are complicit.

It is not a new practice, it was most famously practiced by the East German government agency known as the Stasi. It is reliably reported that 1 in 5 East Germans was a Stasi informer. Sounds like the South Yorkshire Police (and other police agencies in Britain) want to contest that record.

Gavin Ashenden, the former Chaplain to the Queen, also has some thoughts on the matter, and they are very worthwhile.

He [George Orwell in 1984] warned of how a state setting out to control its citizens would do it by manipulating language. He called it doublethink. And the media would follow the same pattern with what he called ‘Newspeak.’  Slowly but surely the reality of things would be hidden by language that covered the truth with a fog.

Each week the news brings more of what we experience as doublespeak in the media. Hate crimes are one of the most corrupting and dangerous ones.

At first sight, it seems almost beyond belief that a police force could decide that thought crime was more important than actual crime.

But in England, that’s what’s happening.

Take for example South Yorkshire police. They have a particularly poor record of dealing with real crime. It was that force that decided to humiliate Cliff Richard by calling in the press helicopter to cover their break in on his house, even though he was innocent. It was they who covered up over the true record of the Hillsborough disaster. And currently, it was they who ignored the mass rape of the Rotherham teenage white girls, by predatory groups of men from one distinctive faith community (known amongst some commentators as the ‘Voldemort community’ – the faith that the media dare not or will not name.)

Heckova a record isn’t it? Anything goes when the authorities want to repress free expression and especially Christianity, which is Cliff Richards real crime.

It’s not as if it’s just happening in S. Yorkshire.

The police get to make it up as it goes along now it seems. Manchester police claim: “Greater Manchester Police now recognises alternative sub-culture hate incidents. These are incidents based on someone’s appearance and include Goths, Emos, Punks and other similar groups. This means they will also record any such incidents as a hate incident. “Other similar groups” What does that mean? Anything the police want it to mean.

One of the practical problems  with pursuing issues of private hate is that you can’t get inside someone’s head to test if it really is hate you are dealing with. What if it’s just dislike, antipathy, fear, distaste, misunderstanding or shyness?

What we are developing, with some speed is the idea and practice of ‘thought crime’ where the police set out to criminalise your feelings and your thoughts. Actually, it’s not even that. It’s what other people feel your feelings and thoughts and opinions are.

Which is where Orwell comes in again. Because hate doesn’t mean hate. It means attitudes the state doesn’t want you to have or express. Hate crime is thought-crime; and thought-crime is state censorship of thought and the expression of thought, which in other places is called ‘free speech.’

Do read the entire article which is valuable. But he is entirely correct, it is nothing less than the government telling you how you are allowed to think, and telling you that you shall be punished if you don’t toe the line. Not to mention that many people will tell them about your heresy. For that is the operative term. It has become a new secular religion and is insanely jealous of its prerogatives.

And do not make the mistake of thinking it is a British or European problem. Do you really think the left in the United States is not exactly like this, as well? How many conservatives have been shouted down, deplatformed, essentially shut up?

Yeah, I’ve lost count, as well.

Sir Roger Scruton on Burkas and Letterboxes

I picked this up somewhere, in the last week or so, as a comment on something. I’m reasonably sure that it is authentic, beyond that I know little about it, except that it is quite current.

It is also indubitably correct, so enjoy the words of a very wise man.

“The emerging witch-hunt culture would be an object of half-amused contempt, were we still protected, as we were until recently, by the robust law of libel. It is still possible to laugh at the absurdity of it all, if you sit at home, avoiding contact with ignorant and malicious people, and getting on with real life – the life beyond social media. Unfortunately, however, ignorant and malicious people have discovered a new weapon in their unremitting assault on the rest of us, which i s the art of taking offence.

I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us that you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as ‘gender studies’, devoted to it. You may not know in advance what offence consists in – politely opening a door for a member of the opposite sex? Thinking of her sex as ‘opposite’? Thinking in terms of ‘sex’ rather than ‘gender’? Using the wrong pronoun? Who knows. We have encountered a new kind of predatory censorship, a desire to take offence that patrols the world for opportunities without knowing in advance what will best supply its venom. As with the puritans of the 17th century, the need to humiliate and to punish precedes any concrete sense of why.

I recall the extraordinary case of Boris Johnson and the burka. In the course of discussing the question whether the full facial covering should be banned here, as elsewhere in Europe, Johnson humorously remarked that a person in a burka has a striking resemblance to a letterbox. He was right. A woman in a burka resembles a letterbox much as a man in white tie resembles a penguin or a woman in feathers resembles a chicken.

It was obvious to anyone with a smattering of intellect that Johnson had no intention to give offence. However, there was political mileage in taking offence – so at once offence was taken. One ridiculous Lord (a Cameron creation) told us that the party whip should be withdrawn from Boris; MPs and public figures fell over each other in the rush to display their shock and distress that our Muslim fellow-citizens should have been so grievously offended; even the Prime Minister ste pped in to reprimand her former Foreign Secretary. Virtue-signalling was the order of the day. A kind of hysterical fear swept away all the important considerations that Johnson was putting before his readers, so that everyone, friend and foe alike, ran for shelter. We are not guilty, was the collective cry of the time-servers and wimps that govern us.

In reaction to this madness I ask myself who it is, in the matter of the burka, that habitually gives offence, and who it is that strives not to take it. We live in a face-to-face society, in which strangers look each other in the eye, address each other directly, and take responsibility for what they say. This custom is not just a fashion. It is deeply implanted in us by a thousand-year old religious and legal tradition, by the Enlightenment conception of what citizenship means, and by a literary and artistic culture that tells us that we are in everything duty bound to see the other as on equal terms with the self. Being face t o face with strangers is at the root of our political freedom.

I was brought up in that freedom. I cannot easily accept that people should appear in public ostentatiously concealing their face from me. The British believe that strangers deal openly with each other and are accountable for their looks and their words. It is natural for them to take offence at those who brazenly hide their face, while nevertheless claiming all the rights and privileges of citizenship. I certainly feel awkward in the presence of such people, and suspect that they are abusing the trust that we spontaneously extend to strangers. Nevertheless, it seems to me a singular virtue in the British that they strive not to take offence, when standing before a black letterbox, wondering where their message should be posted.

No sensitive person, however ignorant he might be of the Muslim faith, would fail to take off his shoes when entering a mosque – not because he feared the reaction of the worshippers, but because he knew that long-standing custom requires this, and that not to observe that custom is to show disrespect for a sacred space. Somehow we are supposed to forget that principle when it comes to long-standing customs of our own. For us too there are sacred spaces, and the public square is one of them: it is the space that belongs to others, not to you, and where you meet those others face to face. When we encounter those who refuse to accept this we are supposed to think that the entitlement to take offence rests entirely with them, and the tendency to give offence entirely with us.

Is it not time to get this whole matter into perspective, and to recognise that we must live together on terms, that Muslims must learn to laugh at themselves as the rest of us do, and that the art of taking offence might be a profitable business to the experts, but is a huge loss to everyone else?”

Roger Scruton

I would only add that while Sir Roger is speaking of the Moslems learning to laugh at themselves, an appropriate comment in contemporary Britain, it is also true for almost the entire left.

We have commented before on the death of comedy, and this is why. If one can’t laugh at oneself, one cannot laugh at anyone. And almost all of life, even our misfortunes, is at some level funny, and we’ll be much healthier if we can see it.

The Saturday Roundup

There is so much floating around out there, that one can barely do it justice. It really hit me yesterday, I ran across three articles in a row that I wanted to feature here. That’s good – right? Sort of, what about the ones that I already have, or will show up tomorrow? Which they always do.

So something today that I used to do once in a while. A paragraph more or less from several articles and their links, and perhaps a sentence (or less) from me.

It is normal for people to have a little resentment at those who have/had more than they do/did. Everyone feels this.

Envy and jealousy are routine, even daily foibles.

What is abnormal — or rather, has become the New, Awful Normal — is for them to publicly shriek about it.

To, as David Niven once wryly put it, put their shortcomings on public exhibition.

We used to learn, as children, to restrain our pettier, nastier, more childlike emotional outbursts.

From Ace’s An Observance of the Decay of Learned Restraint


Yet in the end, Gilder makes a compelling case that the information revolution is moving into an age of decentralization and greater freedom both for entrepreneurs and for those of us who just want to use information technology to make our jobs and lives easier or better. In Gilderian oracular fashion, he calls this process “The Great Unravelling.”

About the end of the age of ‘Big Tech’ from The Federalist’s Review: Big Tech Is Sowing The Seeds Of Its Own Destruction


[A]t this moment, Ohio Democrats and their Beltway masters are diligently working to steal the state’s 12th Congressional District from Republican Troy Balderson. Balderson’s Democratic opponent, Danny O’Connor, refused to concede after narrowly losing the special election and a few hours later — the county where he works — miraculously “discovered” 588 uncounted votes in a “routine audit.” When they were counted, Balderson’s lead shrank by 190. Similar skullduggery will accompany the count of provisional and absentee ballots, which will inevitably lead to an automatic recount, which will ultimately lead to an O’Connor “victory.”

What does this have to do with conservative confusion?

From An Ohio reminder: The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat.In the American Spectator.


Ever since Trump’s election, the increase in deplorable whites identifying with the GOP is frequently denounced as tribalism by pundits, such as David Brooks and Thomas Friedman, who, ironically, tend to be “Members of the Tribe.”

For instance, Brooks ended his fourth of a series of columns lamenting your “tribal emotions” by admitting that he, personally, was totally stoked to find out from a genetics testgiven by a Jewish magazine that he was closely related to the brilliant cognitive scientist Steven Pinker.

From Steve Sailer’s A Half Century of Amnesia in Taki’s Magazine via a review in The American Spectator, itself a valuable article.


Any or all open for discussion

A Wave of Summitry, Illustrated

 

From USA Today

Bwhahaha!

 

From Archbishop Cranmer, after Caravaggio:

The Globalist Last Supper

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And, of course…

Most but not close to all from PowerLine.

%d bloggers like this: