Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has just launched the Bezos Academy. “The @bezosacademy opens its doors on Oct. 19th. This one in Des Moines, WA, is the first of many free preschools that we’ll be opening for underserved children.”
The Bezos Academy is a non-profit organization that is launching a network of tuition-free Montessori-inspired preschools in underserved communities.
There is a claim by Democrats and anti-Trumpers, that during the Charlottesville Riots, President Trump was expressing support and approval of white supremacists and neo-nazis. I’ve heard this mentioned by some prominent Objectivists in their condemnation of Trump, and I assumed it was true. But I wanted to know first-hand (or at least not fifth and sixth-hand) and here is what I found so far: Trump did bungle this, but he does not support white-supremacists.
Here is Trump’s statement that is a point of contention:
“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
The Democrats — and their allies — claim that the entire side of the pro-statue group in Charlottesville consisted of Nazis and White Supremacists, so by Trump saying there were “fine people on both sides,” Trump was defending the White Supremacists.
Here are some of the statements repeated in the press (quoting from a National Review article):
In a back-and-forth with Joel Pollak of Breitbart, Biden defended his attack on the Charlottesville statement: “let’s get this straight — he said there were very fine people in both groups. They were chanting anti-Semitic slogans, carrying flags.”
Kamala Harris tweeted in June that Trump “called neo-Nazis ‘fine people.’” Other Democrats have piled on, following the El Paso shooting. Elizabeth Warren: “He has given aid and comfort to white supremacists. He’s done the wink and a nod. He has talked about white supremacists as fine people.” Cory Booker: “He is responsible and sowing these kinds of divisions to hate-mongers, in fact failing to even condemn them where we saw in Charlottesville where he talks about there being good people on both sides.” Julian Castro: “He didn’t step up right away and condemn the neo-Nazis after Charlottesville.”
Are these claims true?
I think the last point by Julian Castro that Trump “didn’t step up right away and condemn the neo-Nazis after Charlottesville” has some merit (he took 48 hours to release a statement), but I now believe that the other positions do not.
***
Here is the statement Trump made two hours after the Saturday car attack (before all the information about the event was released), while rioting I assume was still going on:
[W]e’re closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Va. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America . . . I just got off the phone with the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, and we agree that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop right now . . . Above all else, we must remember this truth, no matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our God. We love our flag. We’re proud of our country. We’re proud of who we are. So, we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we’re doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen. . . . We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally we have to love each other.
Two days later (approx. 48 hours), on Monday, he issued a statement via the White House:
[B]ased on the events that took place over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, I would like to provide the nation with an update on the ongoing federal response to the horrific attack and violence that was witnessed by everyone. I just met with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the deadly car attack that killed one innocent American and wounded 20 others. To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered.
As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.
Two days ago, a young American woman, Heather Heyer, was tragically killed. Her death fills us with grief, and we send her family our thoughts, our prayers, and our love.
It would have been better if Trump got out his statement against the KKK faster than 48 hours, but he said as President, he needed time to get all the facts correct (yes, Virginia, he said this!):
THE PRESIDENT: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened. Before I make a statement, I need the facts.
(If only he followed this policy all the time before he tweets!!!!)
***
After the statement, Trump was grilled by reporters (full transcript here).
Some highlights:
Q Senator McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead.
Q Well, I’m saying, as Senator —
THE PRESIDENT: No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me.
Q Senator McCain defined them as the same group —
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at …the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.
Q You’re not putting these —
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day —
Q Sir, you’re not putting these protestors on the same level as neo-Nazis — Is the alt-left as bad as white supremacy?
THE PRESIDENT: I will tell you something. I watched those very closely — much more closely than you people watched it. And you have — you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group — you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.
[…]
THE PRESIDENT: Those people — all of those people –excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.
[…]
Q Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs — and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.
But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left — you just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.
Q (Inaudible) both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides — I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say.
Q The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group.
Q (Inaudible.)
[…]
THE PRESIDENT: And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.
Q Who are the good people? Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people — neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest — because I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country — a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
According to Trump’s questioner, the entire side of those on the right present consisted of white nationalists. (Also note that Trump is incorrect here, as it is reported, that the only group that had a permit were the white nationalists.)
According to Trump, both sides were mixed:
(1) On the ‘keep the statue up’ (right) side (which I believe is the wrong position), you had violent Nazis and peaceful, non-white supremacists.
(2) On the ‘remove statue’ (left) side, you had violent Antifa thugs, and you had peaceful remove the statute/anti-white supremacists (similar to the BLM protests today).
(For the record, I think Lee’s statue belongs in a history museum, or on private property, and not in a public – government – setting.)
***
Writing on August 16, 2017, Robert Tracinski writes:
The important thing about this is that there is not a scrap of evidence that any of it is true. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. The rally in Charlottesville was called “Unite the Right,” which despite its name made no real attempt to bring together any recognizable strains from the mainstream American political right. Instead, it drew from a spectrum ranging from the Neo-Confederates to the Neo-Nazis to the White Nationalists to the White Supremacists—various ideological shades so indistinguishable from each other that you don’t need a special dispensation from Mike Godwin to just call them all Nazis.
Two years later in 2019, Robert Tracinski, writing in the Bulwark, further writes:
What if there really was another group of protesters there that day, and that’s who Trump was referring to? Well, there’s the problem. No such group exists. This mythical second group of protesters is like the “second shooter” in conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. I’ve found people who insist to me that such a group was there because the “Charlottesville Hoax” mythology requires it to exist—but I haven’t found a single shred of actual confirmation. It’s almost as if they have adopted a false memory.
That’s what originally set me off about this Trump claim. I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.
The New York Times, to their credit, reported on August 16, 2017:
“Good people can go to Charlottesville,” said Michelle Piercy, a night shift worker at a Wichita, Kan., retirement home, who drove all night with a conservative group that opposed the planned removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee.
After listening to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, she said it was as if he had channeled her and her friends — all gun-loving defenders of free speech, she said, who had no interest in standing with Nazis or white supremacists: “It’s almost like he talked to one of our people.”
Conservatives like Ms. Piercy, who have grown only more emboldened after Charlottesville, believe that the political and media elite hold them and Mr. Trump to a harsh double standard that demands they answer for the sins of a radical, racist fringe. They largely accept Mr. Trump’s contention that these same forces are using Charlottesville as an excuse to undermine his presidency, and by extension, their vote.
In fairness to Tracinski and others who hold his view, it is unclear if the peaceful pro-statue side was at Charlottesville on Friday (Saturday was the day of the car attack). Trump tends to mumble and misspeak at times so he can be interpreted to be mixing the Friday and Saturday events together.
Also, a lawsuit was filed against American Warrior Revolution and similar groups to keep them and other “paramilitary groups” out of Charlottesville.
Melanie Morgan at Media Equalizer profiled Piercy at the time:
Michelle Piercy, who travelled to Charlottesville to participate as a neutral peacekeeper for American Warrior Revolution, a group that stands up for individual free speech rights and acts as a buffer between competing voices, knew there was going to be violence, but went anyway.
“We were made aware that the situation could be dangerous, and we were prepared.” Piercy says. The Wichita night-worker for a Kansas retirement home said that “the situation was completely disorganized, the police were responsible for herding white supremacists on the street where Antifa and BLM were located. All chaos broke out. I witnessed police officers say, ‘that’s not our problem’ and ‘you shouldn’t have come’ and refused to help the injured.”
Piercy says that she doesn’t support white supremacy, Naziism, or alt-right causes. Nor does she believe the president has that in his heart.
“My partner is a black man who travelled to Charlottesville for the same reason I did [to protect free speech]. We were in groups and he’s a very good man. What we were trying to do is talk to Antifa and Black Lives Matter and let them know that the way they were protesting is the wrong way to go about it.”*
* Note: I’m not sure why “[to protect free speech]” in the original quote is in square brackets which is unfortunate.
***
In regards to waiting for all the facts, I wish Obama did the same in regards to George Zimmerman and the shooting of Trayvon Martin. If Obama did his homework he would have learned that the “racist” George Zimmerman had black ancestry through his grandmother’s side and that he volunteered to help black people in his free time.
In evaluating Trump one needs to look at both the negatives — and the positives; both are necessary for making a proper evaluation. Even on many of Trump’s negatives, Trump is mixed.
Take the claim that Trump is “anti-science.” The Trump administration’s policies are not anti-science in regards to energy or the “settled science” of climate change. For example, in the domain of energy, according to Alex Epstein, Trump is the pro-energy candidate, and Biden “will destroy American industry, impoverish American consumers, and jeopardize American security.” As far as I am aware, Trump also dropped out of any UN/EU climate change programs. As a policy that is “pro-science.”
Take immigration: Trump is morally wrong to carry out the traditional Democrat policy of restricting immigrant visas to “save American jobs,” but he is right to secure the borders (see Amy Peikoff “Immigration, Borders and Screening under Capitalism“), and he is right on the importance of enforcing the law, as Harry Binswanger writes:
Selective enforcement of the law amounts to no law. Hitler could have killed all the Jews by announcing that he would not prosecute anyone who murdered a Jew.
Take trade and IP: One of Trump’s worst policies economically is tariff protectionism, as Raymond Niles correctly points out in President Donald Trump is a Classic Mercantilist:
Trump is a classic mercantilist. A mercantilist favors exporters over importers and the use of government tariffs to promote (or “protect”) less efficient, but politically favored “national champion” companies against their foreign competitors.
Interestingly, one implication of this insight into tariffs is that a country is better off if it unilaterally reduces tariffs on goods even if its trading partners do not equivalently reduce tariffs and instead maintain them at a higher level.
The United Kingdom followed this policy when it unilaterally lowered and eliminated major tariffs in the 19th century even when its trading partners often did not. The result was prosperity across the world as global trade expanded.
Keeping Nile’s arguments in mind, one insight to Trump’s perspective, according to free-trade “supply-side” economist Laffer, is that Trump sees tariffs as the only “bargaining chip” to force Communist China to open its borders to U.S. goods. According to Laffer:
“He’s said to me personally that he has very little leverage except by threatening tariffs and I have to trust him that he’s telling me the truth….I believe deep down that he’s a free trader….Any owner of an international business has to be a free trader if they know how to do business and he does.”
Trump also used this as a bargaining chip to stop the violation of the rights of U.S. patent holders. (One counterpoint argument is that certain national industries need protection for national security. I think that is a legitimate issue, but I do not believe tariffs are the way to handle it.)
Take the media: According to C. Bradley Thompson, Trump’s attacks on the “Deep State” — which includes the media — are of major historical importance. Another positive “Trumpian” policy is increasing freedom in schools and education. Schools are the Regressive Left’s dominant source of intellectual power — Trump has broadsided them with his support for educational alternatives that increase liberty, ranging from charter schools and school vouchers to tax credits.
As for “save the welfare state for Americans,” opposition to the welfare state politically would be political suicide — unless everyone in America reads and grasps Atlas Shrugged and Don Watkin’s excellent Rooseveltcare: How Social Security Is Sabotaging the Land of Self-Reliance.
And let’s not forget the Supreme Court. Writing in The Ayn Rand Letter, “The American Spirit” on why Ayn Rand supported Nixon:
“There is, however, one promise of his 1968 campaign – perhaps, the most important one – which he has kept: the appointment to the Supreme Court of men who respect the Constitution. It is still too early to tell the exact nature of these men’s views and the direction they will choose to take. But if they live up to their enormous responsibility, we may forgive Mr. Nixon a great many of his faults: the Supreme Court is the last remnant of a philosophical influence in this country.”
Trump does not exist in a vacuum. What Americans have are two package deals. The choice is not Trump or John Galt; it’s Trump or the “Harris Administration with Joe Biden as President.”
Trump may not be a laissez-faire capitalist. He may be an ogre. But many Americas do see him as representing the side of Americanism and Capitalism. Trump supporters use the words “Americanism” and “capitalism” as something to aspire to even though many of them do not fully understand the full impact of their meaning. Democrats use these words as curses or at best in apologies.
In the present climate, a Trump loss might only be seen as a broadside for Americanism, individualism, and capitalism by a tiny minority of “Never Trumpers.”
It will not necessarily be seen as a broadside against the vices mentioned above.
It will not necessarily be seen as a broadside against “foreigners-taking-our-jobs” as Democrats want the union vote.
It will not necessarily be seen as “saving the welfare state for Americans,” as Democrats will do the same and double down on it.
It will not necessarily be seen as against “spend, spend, spend,” as the Democrats will reward every (mostly Democratic) governor, city, and state that has enforced lockdowns and enabled rioters.
It will not necessarily be seen as defending “Tech companies and the media because they are biased,” but will further strengthen the Democrats’ control of the leash.
It will be seen as a win against the policies of Trump that are virtues.
For a large number of people, it will be seen as a victory against Americanism (however poorly understood), individualism (however poorly understood), and Capitalism (however poorly understood).
Many of the better Republicans support Trump not because they approve of the “Trumpism” described above, but for the reasons “Never Trumper” Daniel Pipes states in “A Reluctant but Unhesitating Vote for Donald Trump“:
I signed an open letter committing to “working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted” to the presidency and wrote many articles lambasting Trump. I left the Republican party on his nomination and voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in the general election. After the election, I hoped for Trump’s impeachment and President Mike Pence.
Nearly four years later, Trump’s character still troubles and repels me. If anything, his egotism, disloyalty, and bombast exceed those vices when he was a mere candidate.
[…]
But, to my unending surprise, he has governed as a resolute conservative. His policies in the areas of education, taxes, deregulation, and the environment have been bolder than Ronald Reagan’s. His judicial appointments are the best of the past century (thank you, Leonard Leo). His unprecedented assault on the administrative state proceeds apace, ignoring predictable howls from the Washington establishment. Even his foreign policy has been conservative: demanding that allies contribute their fair share, confronting China and Iran, and singularly supporting Israel. Ironically, as David Harsanyi notes, a potential character flaw actually works to our advantage: “Trump’s obstinacy seems to have made him less susceptible to the pressures that traditionally induce GOP presidents to capitulate.”
(Economic performance drives many voters to support or oppose a sitting president, but not me. Partly, because the president has only limited control; partly, because it’s a transient issue that matters much less than long-term policies.)
Of course, I also disagree with Trump: protectionism, an indifference to public debt, a hostility toward allies, a soft-spot for Turkish strongman Erdoğan, and those dangerous meetings with Kim Jong-un. His unrestrained behavior interferes with proper government functioning. The tweets are a protracted liability.
But we all disagree with some of what every president does; more surprisingly, I agree with about 80 percent of Trump’s actions, a higher number than any of his predecessors’, going back to Lyndon Johnson.
I have come to understand the wisdom in Salena Zito‘s September 2016 witticism about Trump that “the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Or, as Daniel Larison notes, “We need to judge Trump by his actions and not his words.” I also agree with James Woolsey that Trump would be a much better prime minister than president.
Slowly but inexorably over the past three years, my approval of the policies has outbalanced my distaste for the person. Finally, knowing that Joe Biden will represent the radicalized Democrats in November, I conclude that I will do my small part to help Trump get re-elected by writing, giving, and voting.
I reached this conclusion reluctantly but unhesitatingly. Emotionally, esthetically, and intellectually, I would prefer to keep my distance from Trump and inhabit a neutral space between the parties, as in 2016. But I will vote for him as the politician who represents my conservative views. I urge other reluctant conservatives to do the same.
Whatever the flaws, based on my observations, I think Daniel Pipes’ assessment of how he views the election is viewed is a better representation of how a large segment of the population will interpret the election results.
Recommended Reading: Cheap One Dollar 15 Minute Result COVID-19 Tests Can End The Need for National Lockdowns Permanently
From the lefty VOX, commenting on “Alt-Right” (national socialist) support for “universal basic income” and “single-payer healthcare”:
Alt-rightists and other Trump-loyal conservatives — Richard Spencer, VDARE writer and ex–National Review staffer John Derbyshire, Newsmax CEO and Trump friend Christopher Ruddy, and onetime Donald Trump Jr. speechwriter and Scholars & Writers for Trump head F.H. Buckley — all endorsed various models of single-payer in recent months and years.
(Note: I’m not familiar with the “Trump-loyal conservatives” to know if it is fair for VOX to lump them with the “alt-right” as they do in the above paragraph.)
White-nationalist Richard Spencer now supports Biden after Trump had Qassem Soleimani killed in a military airstrike.
***
Superficially, the 21st-century “new-left” and “alt-right” are on opposing ends, but in terms of essentials — like the fascists and communists of the 20th century — they are the same: both anti-capitalism.
Recommended Reading:
Book: The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America
by Leonard PeikoffFrom EPA.gov:
Average drought conditions across the nation have varied since records began in 1895. The 1930s and 1950s saw the most widespread droughts, while the last 50 years have generally been wetter than average (see Figure 1).
“This chart shows annual values of the Palmer Drought Severity Index, averaged over the entire area of the contiguous 48 states. Positive values represent wetter-than-average conditions, while negative values represent drier-than-average conditions. A value between -2 and -3 indicates moderate drought, -3 to -4 is severe drought, and -4 or below indicates extreme drought. The thicker line is a nine-year weighted average.”
From the U.S. Drought Monitor:
From: https://firerestorationgroup.org/
In the West, fires are burning today at higher intensities and larger spatial scales than in the recent past. With the attempted removal of Native Americans and their cultures of extensive burning, coupled with roughly 120 years of active fire suppression, we are experiencing an unraveling of ecosystem stability. This comes at a time when climate change is exacerbating drought and extending fire seasons.
[…]
Scientists are clear that we are in a severe deficit of “good fire.” Prior to 1800 approximately 4.5 million acres were burning in California annually, half of which were from tribal burning. Today our forests are two to three times more dense than they were historically. While we are not returning to the 1800s, we need to extensively restore fire on the California landscape as a pathway to resilience.
From an MSN article:
“I don’t want to be alarmist. But I think the conditions are there,” said Scott Stephens, a UC Berkeley professor of fire science and lead author of a 2018 paper that raised the specter of future mass forest fires as intense as the Dresden, Germany, and Tokyo firebombings.
“As those [trees] continue to fall, the physics of it are unchanged. If you have dead and downed logs … the fires described in warfare are possible.”
One of hundreds of major blazes to erupt in this record-breaking fire season in California, the Creek fire has underscored the urgency of reducing that monster fuel load.
The only way to do that on the broad, landscape level needed, many experts say, is with fire of a different sort.
“All of us on the paper were suggesting that if you are going to try to reduce that mass fire problem in the future, you really need to start putting prescribed fire into these stands to start whittling away at those bigger fuels,” said Forest Service research ecologist Malcolm North, one of Stephens’ eight co-authors.
[…]
Some areas have 500 to 800 trees per acre, compared with 60 to 100 pre-settlement. As North puts it, there were too many straws in the dry ground competing for water. The beetle toll was the greatest in the densest stands. There dead fuel will keep piling up for years to come.
Climate change, which accentuated drought severity and is promoting record-breaking heat waves this summer, “is like the frosting on the cake,” said conservationist Craig Thomas.
Here is a video with Scott Stephens at the UC Berkely Fire Science Lab which has some interesting photos of how California forests have changed over the century.
Writes Terence P. Jeffrey on “D.C. Public Schools Spend $30K Per Student; Only 23% of 8th Graders Proficient in Reading“, CNS News, (September 16, 2020):
The public elementary and secondary schools in the District of Columbia spent $30,115 per pupil during the 2016-2017 school year, according to Table 236.75 in the Department of Education’s “Digest of Education Statistics.”
But only 23% of the eighth graders in the D.C. public schools were proficient or better in reading in 2019, according to the department’s National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, tests.
Similarly, only 23% of eighth graders in the district’s public schools were proficient or better in mathematics.
There has been much outrage and headlines over the “fact” that Trump wants to serve three terms.
In truth, when Trump said he was running in 2048, or whatever year after a second term, he was in fact joking.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
From the Washington Post (April 2019):
President Trump on Thursday joked about serving more than two terms as president, telling a crowd that he might remain in the Oval Office “at least for 10 or 14 years.”
Trump made the comments on the same day that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report was released to the public.
At an event for the Wounded Warrior Project, Lt. Gen. Michael S. Linnington, chief executive of the veterans charity, gave Trump a trophy to thank him for his support.
“Well, this is really beautiful,” Trump told the crowd in the East Room of the White House. “This will find a permanent place, at least for six years, in the Oval Office. Is that okay?”
After some laughter from the crowd, Trump continued: “I was going to joke, General, and say at least for 10 or 14 years, but we would cause bedlam if I said that, so we’ll say six.”
Also see: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-explains-why-he-talks-about-a-third-term
***
As for an example of a legitimate claim against Trump, the claim that Trump is using the antitrust laws against Amazon/Bezos because he regards Bezos and his Washington Post as a political enemy seems to have some merit (though we will have to see what facts the court case brings out). Then again, the Washington Post seems to approve of antitrust in general so perhaps there is some “justice” in their being “hoisted with their own petard.”
***
My point is that there is so much said about Trump — much of it untrue — that the noise drowns out legitimate criticisms of Trump. I see this with the fictional “boy that cries wolf,” or, the Democrat that calls every Republican a “racist!” “Trump’s a racist? Well didn’t you say the same thing about Goldwater, Ford, Reagan, Bush I & II, McCain, Romney, …”
There has been much made in the media of Trump’s so-called support of some group called Q-Anon.
Here is the first video that shows up for me on YouTube for “Trump and Q-Anon”:
Here is the essence of what Trump said:
“I don’t know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate ….I have heard that it is gaining in popularity … I’ve heard these are people that love our country.”
Here is what the video shows:
Q-Anon seems to serve the same role as the John Birch Society — a way for the Regressive-Left to condemn their opposition en masse.
There are many things to condemn Trump on — personal character, tariff policies, immigration policies — the importance of the Q-Anon is not one of them.
Stuart Anderson at Forbes succinctly points out that the Trump Administration’s H1-B visa restrictions won’t create new U.S. jobs, but move sectors of the economy outside of the U.S. where workers are not restricted by their nationality:
Government officials and others who ignore or won’t concede that the labor market is global seem to believe, despite the evidence, that companies won’t send work outside the United States in response to H-1B visa restrictions. “Foreign affiliate employment increased as a direct response to increasingly stringent restrictions on H-1B visas,” according to firm-level data in important research by Britta Glennon, an assistant professor at the Wharton School of Business. “[A]ny policies that are motivated by concerns about the loss of native jobs should consider that policies aimed at reducing immigration have the unintended consequence of encouraging firms to offshore jobs abroad.”
“IT outsourcing has evolved from relatively simple tasks to much more complex software development,” notes the Wall Street Journal. “[Pennsylvania-based] EPAM developers, scattered across more than 160 offices in multiple time zones using Microsoft’s collaboration software, Teams, routinely work on a single project. For example, developers in Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, and the U.S. are working on booking platforms for a major online travel company.”
What will be the impact of the new H-1B regulation? “All of the changes in the regulation are likely to be resisted by employers as inconsistent with the statute and economically harmful,” said William Stock. “If allowed to go into effect, the regulation will continue the current trend of employers sending high-value technology work offshore because of policies from this administration that are keeping and pushing key personnel outside the United States.” [“Regulation To Restrict H-1B Visas Moves Toward Final Step“]
More importantly, as Robert Tracinski argued in Restrictions on “H-1B” Visas Punish Ability and Trample the Rights of Employer and Employee:
The irrational premise behind our nation’s immigration laws is that a native-born American has a “right” to a particular job, not because he has earned it, but because he was born here. To this “right,” the law sacrifices the employer’s right to hire the best employees — and the immigrant’s right to take a job that he deserves. To put it succinctly, initiative and productiveness are sacrificed to sloth and inertia.
The “American dream” is essentially the freedom of each individual to rise as far as his abilities take him. The opponents of immigration, however, want to repudiate that vision by turning America into a privileged preserve for those who want the law to set aside jobs for them — jobs they cannot freely earn through their own efforts.
The quotas on H-1B visas — along with all other visas — should not just be expanded; they should be eliminated. Any immigrant who wants to come to America in search of a better life should be let in — and any employer who wants to hire him should be free to do so. Anything less would be un-American.
Related: Rebecca Girn: Trump’s Immigration Visa Restrictions are a Violation of Individual Rights
This post has been significantly updated and has moved to a new location. Click here.
Philosopher Aaron Briley at TOS remarks on America’s race fixation in “We Can’t Fight Racism by Engaging in Racism“:
The desire not to be viewed as racist is prompting people to fixate on race—even though doing so harms all involved.
In the current climate, the mere appearance of being racist can cost a person dearly. People who are presumed to be racist can be and often are fired from their jobs, banned from social media, even subjected to death threats. The upshot: Instead of being rationally color-blind, people and institutions are putting undue focus on race. That is, instead of judging people not by “the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” they are doing just the opposite. They are judging people by the color of their skin—and acting accordingly—in order to not appear racist.
Of course, judging people differently because of the color of their skin is the very essence of racism. And such patent racism is sweeping through our institutions.
[…]
Consider an increasingly popular policy regarding minority criminal suspects: More and more, police departments are omitting race when describing suspects, especially black suspects, even when divulging it clearly would help to ensure public safety.
***
An illustration of this “color-washing” is CNN’s report of black children slaughtered over the July 4th, 2020 holiday weekend, titled “At least 6 children were killed by gun violence across the nation this holiday weekend.” Apparently, according to CNN, a bunch of guns decided all on there own to go celebrate independence day by causing some violence. (Obviously, guns are inanimate objects, that had nothing to do in causing the violence, as only human beings possess free-will.)
From the CNN article:
At least six children were killed in shootings across the country over the holiday weekend, sparking calls from officials to end the gun violence plaguing their communities. The children, ages 6 to 14, were all shot and killed while doing everyday things — riding in mom’s car, walking in a mall, and playing in a yard with their cousins. [ “At least 6 children were killed by gun violence across the nation this holiday weekend“]
In every case, where a description is available the perpetrator is black, though you would not know this from the CNN article. The most we get is that they were “persons”:
“A suspect has been arrested on charges, and police have released additional surveillance images of several persons of interest they are seeking in connection to the child’s death.”
Going to the police press release of the shooter — and the suspects — we see they are all black. (It is also chilling that the police report does not describe them as black either). Or, from the same article reporting on another shooting:
A group of children were playing in the yard in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood when three suspects exited a light colored vehicle and fired shots at a group gathered outside a home on the 100 block of North Latrobe Ave, police said.
[…]
“As a city we must wrap our arms around our youth so they understand there’s a future for them that isn’t wrapped up in gun violence.”
At least we know the shade of the suspect’s vehicle.
Now compare this to another shooting report and take a look at CNN’s description when the perpetrator is white and the victim is black:
“…a White officer firing seven times into Jacob Blake’s back in front of the 29-year-old Black man’s three young sons.”
And later in the same article where the perpetrator is white:
“…Confusion also spread about the shooting during the protests, with critics asking how the White teenager armed with a military-style rifle, …”
Writing in the FInanical Post, James H. Stock on why Lockdowns are too blunt a weapon against Covid makes three key points:
[E]conomic lockdowns are neither necessary nor sufficient to suppress Covid-19. But the concerted use of largely non-economic interventions can suppress the virus and set the stage for the recovery of demand and employment in restaurants, travel and other high-contact sectors. …economic lockdowns alone are a blunt, costly and only partially effective instrument of public health.
There are many less expensive measures that, when deployed together, can be highly effective. These include working from home and setting rules to make the workplace safe. Taking special steps to protect the elderly, reopening the lowest-contact economic sectors first, banning the highest-risk activities such as bars and large social gatherings, wearing masks, social distancing and enhanced testing, quarantine, and contact tracing are already familiar. If they are seriously adopted, together they can suppress the virus without resorting to a new round of economic lockdowns.
Most important, testing for the virus remains grossly inadequate….Rapid screening tests need to be widely available…My colleague Michael Mina argues persuasively that the government should fast-track approval and production of cheap paper-strip antigen tests that would alert the newly infected of the need to isolate.
Screening tests need not detect every infection. Mathematically, rapid testing and isolation acts like herd immunity: by reducing the chance that a susceptible individual comes into contact with an infected one it can drive the basic reproduction or “R” number below one. Even if a testing regime pulls only a fraction of the infected out of circulation, that — along with other measures such as widespread mask usage and targeted bans of potential superspreader events — can suppress the virus, bring down deaths to very low levels and set the stage for a strong recovery.
“The individual human life fully lived is an end in itself.” – Ray Girn
Education innovator, Ray Girn, one of the world’s foremost experts in scaling Montessori education gives a moving speech on the importance of creating conditions to optimize a child’s environment so that they may live a life that is “fully lived.” Must listen.
“You know no one ever questions why a black student studies African-American studies but they do when he studies Aristotle, unfortunately.”- Aaron Briley
“The subject of racism has gradually snowballed over recent years, and exploded into mainstream culture over the past month. Brands are declaring their commitment to fight racism, several organisations have launched mandatory diversity trainings—even the Oscars have recently introduced certain diversity requirements for eligibility for the award. Individuals are making and denying accusations of racism in droves, and the terms ‘white fragility’, ‘systemic racism’ and ‘complicity’ have been used liberally and passionately. In order to make sense of, judge and properly respond to this new wave of events, it is essential to philosophically unpack it. What is racism? What is not racism? Is racism best countered by governmental action, organisational policy, or something else entirely? Andrew Bernstein is a philosopher and novelist. He is the author of several books, including The Capitalist Manifesto, Capitalism Unbound, and the recently-published Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters. Aaron Briley, Ph.D., is a philosopher who promotes life-enhancing cultural values to black Americans, with the ultimate goal of bringing about a Black Renaissance of education, achievement, and fulfillment. He is a fellow/research associate Objective Standard Institute on race relations, cultural improvement, individualism, clear thinking, and freedom.” Video made available by the Ayn Rand Center UK.
The day before this show was recorded, Dr. Thomas Sowell began his 10th decade of life. Remarkably on one hand and yet completely expected on the other, he remains as engaged, analytical, and thoughtful as ever. In this interview (one of roughly a dozen or so we’ve conducted with Dr. Sowell over the years), we delve into his new book Charter Schools and Their Enemies, a sobering look at the academic success of charter schools in New York City, and the fierce battles waged by teachers unions and progressive politicians to curtail them. Dr. Sowell’s conclusion is equally thought provoking: If the opponents of charter schools succeed, the biggest losers will be poor minority children for whom a quality education is the best chance for a better life.
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to the author of America’s Revolutionary Mind, C. Bradley Thompson (Professor, Clemson University) about the origins of the Declaration of Independence, myths about American slavery and the founding fathers, why 1765 was possibly a more important year than 1776 for the American Revolution and why Donald Trump is one of the few presidents to ever challenge the deep state.
Issues covered include:
Recommended:
Rep. John Deberry Jr. channels MLK and states that the “protests” are not peaceful but are self-destructive to the black Americans in particular and America in general.
“If we don’t start standing for something don’t you know that the people that are looking at what’s happening in Washington, in Detroit, in Portland, in Seattle, they’re getting emboldened because we act like a bunch of punks. Too frightened to stand up and protect our own stuff. You tell me that somebody has the right to tear down property that Tennessee taxpayers paid for? That American taxpayers paid for? And somebody has the right to destroy it, deface it, and tear it down? What kind of people have we become?”
“Peaceful protests ends peacefully, anarchy ends in chaos. What we see happening right now, any of us with any common sense, any common sense whatsoever, know that what we see is not peaceful. So we can continue to fool ourselves and mix with words and use rhetoric and public relations in order to frost this stuff over and put a nice picture on what we see that is frightening.”
Well said, sir. Well said.
***
In May of 2020, the Tennessee Democratic Party’s State Executive Committee voted to remove DeBerry from the Democratic primary ballot after 26 years in office, because according to one committee member who voted to remove him DeBerry wasn’t “exemplifying the basic Democratic principles.
Said Berry: “I was kind of blindsided because I have run as a Democrat since 1995 and I have won 13 elections as a Democrat,” DeBerry said. “… My views have always been conservative. The people in my district know this. And even though I’ve had opponents who have hammered me over and over about my stance on abortion, about my stance on the family and my stance on education, [voters] have overwhelmingly elected me 13 times.”
Berry will be running as an independent.