PowerLine -> John Hinderaker – How the Democratic Party Has Mainstreamed Anti-Semitism + More Mueller madness

Powerline John Hinderaker at HoaxAndChange

PowerLine -> John Hinderaker – How the Democratic Party Has Mainstreamed Anti-Semitism + More Mueller madness

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Daily Digest


  • Going Postal Revisited
  • Eye on the news
  • “Something happened a while ago”
  • More Mueller madness
  • How the Democratic Party Has Mainstreamed Anti-Semitism
Going Postal Revisited

Posted: 10 Jun 2018 02:59 PM PDT

(Steven Hayward)Anyone remember the phrase “going postal”? It arose from the spate in incidents starting in the 1980s when disgruntled former postal workers, in at least 11 separate incidents, returned to a postal facility and shot up the place, killing 35 people according to Wikipedia. The phrase became common currently for workplace violence which spread beyond post offices, and sometimes the phrase was used casually, as in “I just might go postal over this!”

My sense is that the “wave” of workplace violence like this has slacked off, but I wouldn’t necessarily trust the statistics. Remember: the Obama Administration classified Major Nidal Hasan’s attack at Fort Hood, Texas, as “workplace violence” rather than classifying it properly as “going jihadist.”  In any case, the incidence of workplace shootings seemed to have copycat element to it, just as school shootings in recent years also seem to have a copycat or contagion element to it, as David French, recalling earlier work by Malcolm Gladwell, explained in a lucid article.

Today there is speculation that the close suicides of designer Kate Spade and celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain my have a copycat element about it. “Can One Suicide Lead to Others?” the New York Times asks today. Like school and workplace shootings, there is suggestive evidence that the answer may be yes.

This comes right on the heels of news that the number of suicides in the U.S. is up sharply, which is provoking a lot of pop psychology and sweeping cultural generalizations about what might account for this.  There may be some element of truth to some of these explanations, but let me first express a bit of skepticism about the new statistics. I’m not convinced that the number of suicides is increasing. I think it is possible that the number of suicides being reported as such is increasing. There’s always been a stigma attached to suicide—perhaps wisely so—and in some cases suicide might void insurance policies. So a lot of suicides have been classified as other causes.

I suspect this because about a decade ago I tried to do some research into suicide statistics to see if I could demonstrate something about automobile emissions, believe it or not. One of the old methods of killing yourself painlessly is to run your car’s motor in a garage, or with a hose into the car window, but the immense emission control improvements of the last 40 years actually make that a difficult method, because carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions have almost been completely eliminated. (It may not be possible at all any more with some new models, though I am not going to test this hypothesis myself.) I suspected that suicide data might show a large decline in suicide-by-tailpipe.

But I couldn’t find any data on the question at all. As I chased after the data, I learned that methods of suicide were not consistently kept, even when suicide was admitted as the cause of death. So I gave up the inquiry.

One reason workplace violence has declined, as Paul observed a while ago, is that we “hardened” large workplaces with security guards and/or other deterrents. Sadly we’ll need to do with with schools. I have no idea what might be done about suicide if it is indeed a phenomenon that might be or become a contagion.

  

Eye on the news

Posted: 10 Jun 2018 01:30 PM PDT

(Scott Johnson)I am studying up to arrive at a considered judgment on the incipient trade war between the United States and Canada. I have to say that this is one war in which I thought NAFTA was the answer and pacifism otherwise made sense, but I may be mistaken.

Some days you have to turn to Twitter for perspective and insight. I can only say that I hope Canadian patriotism is insufficient to help Prime Minister Trudeau surmount the apparent scandal of fake eyebrows as he battles President Trump. After such knowledge, what forgiveness?

Justin Trudeau’s left eyebrow detached after meeting Trump — so what? These days, who doesn’t wear fake eyebrows? pic.twitter.com/EZTeYllCrH

— Mike (@Doranimated) June 10, 2018

The Daily Caller’s Amber Athey cautiously suggests that Trudea’s brows may be the real deal after all. I hope not!

  

“Something happened a while ago”

Posted: 10 Jun 2018 12:25 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)President Trump has urged that Russia be readmitted to what is now the G-7. He stated:

Something happened a while ago where Russia is no longer in. I think it would be good to have Russia back in.

Whatever was it that happened “a while ago” that caused Russia to be kicked out of the G-7? I remember. Russia annexed Crimea.

How long a while ago did Russia do that? Four years.

Some things have happened since. In Eastern Ukraine, Russia has sponsored a war against a government we are friends with. It shot down a commercial airliner in Eastern Ukraine killing all 298 passengers.

In Syria, Russia has bombed civilians without mercy in order, in conjunction with Iran and Hezbollah, to save the Assad regime. And it interfered in our 2016 presidential election (even Trump doesn’t deny this), as well as elections in other European democracies.

Why, under these circumstances, does Trump believe Russia should be readmitted to the inner circle of our international partners. None of the G-7 members invades its neighbors, bombs civilians in support of enemy dictators in the Middle East, or interferes with the elections of fellow member states. None kills journalists or attempts the assassination of expats on the soil of member states.

The G-7 is a fraternity of our core partners. It should not include geopolitical adversaries with whom our relations are anything but fraternal (otherwise, why not invite China in). It should not include nations whose system of government differs radically from other members, and who don’t adhere to their norms. It certainly should not include nations whose ambitions are fundamentally at odds with those of the others.

I don’t mean to suggest the U.S. shouldn’t maintain relations with Russia or that we should never cooperate with Putin. We should and we do.

Russia is a member of the G-20. We deal with Russia as a fellow member of the U.N. Security Council. We coordinate to a degree with the Russian air force in Syria. And Trump is free to talk bilaterally with Vladimir Putin at any time. We can have all the dealings we want with Putin without inviting him into our tent.

The G-7 isn’t about to do so, as Trump must have known. Why, then, did he push for Russia’s readmission? I don’t know. Perhaps it was just to poke America’s fellow members, with whom he is feuding, in the eye. Perhaps he wanted to send a signal to Putin or maybe even to keep a promise.

The most innocent explanation would be that Trump is simply adhering to the position he took during the campaign — that, if possible, we should have good relations with Putin. Trump may also want to show that he’s not cowed by accusations of collusion with Russia into backing away from that position.

Unfortunately “some things have happened” since Trump first took this stance that should, and I had thought did, persuade him we can’t now have relations good enough to justify inviting Russia back into the G-7. Maybe he is persuaded and was just being a jerk with his blithe “something happened a while ago” remark. But maybe not.

  

More Mueller madness

Posted: 10 Jun 2018 07:44 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)Ken Vogel gives us the New York Times take on the superseding indictment of Paul Manafort alleging obstruction of justice. It comes in Vogel’s story on the new charges against Manafort and his previously unnamed Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik. The previously pending charges against Manafort of course had nothing to do with the synthetic collusion hyseteria over the 2016 election. Neither does the alleged obstruction of justice in connection with the previously pending charges.

This is how Vogel puts it in the third paragraph of his story: “The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has not publicly sought to connect Mr. Kilimnik or Mr. Manafort to Russian meddling in the 2016 election, but Friday’s indictment of Mr. Kilimnik could carry symbolic significance nonetheless.”

I think that is a stretch. Vogel hears the indictment singing “Something’s Coming,” Tony’s fantastic first-act song in West Side Story. Indictments do not carry symbolic significance in any meaningful sense. For me, however, Vogel’s paragraph carries symbolic significance. It signifies a mutation of the Mueller madness infecting the journalists cheering Mueller on.

  

How the Democratic Party Has Mainstreamed Anti-Semitism

Posted: 10 Jun 2018 07:31 AM PDT

(John Hinderaker)Ilhan Omar is a Somali-American who serves in the Minnesota House of Representatives. Scott has written about her here a number of times. She apparently entered into a bigamous marriage with her brother in order to facilitate immigration fraud, but the facts are murky and she refuses to clarify them.

Keith Ellison is resigning from the House to run for Attorney General of Minnesota, so the rush is on to succeed him. The DFL party will have a special nominating convention in just a few days, but at the moment, the front-runner is none other than Ms. Omar, who has been endorsed by Governor Mark Dayton.

Omar, who describes herself as an “intersectional feminist,” is a classic 21st century Democrat. This is what she tweeted a few years ago:

Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 16, 2012

I don’t expect Omar’s overt anti-Semitism to be an obstacle to her nomination for Congress or, in all likelihood, her election.

Via @AG_Conservative.

  

Leave a Reply