Key Media Drop Pretense of Objectivity

The following paragraph appeared in the Washington Post recently:

 “President Trump has settled on a strategy of fear – laced with falsehoods and racially tinged rhetoric – to help lift his party to victory in the coming midterms, part of a broader effort to energize Republican voters with two weeks left until the Nov. 6 elections.” 

Was it an (1) editorial, (2) opinion column or (3) a news article?

In an era that seems long ago, the answer would have been (1) or (2), certainly not (3).

But in October 2018, the item was on the front page, upper left-hand corner (most prominent position) of the Washington Post.

When a newspaper places opinions and characterizations such as “strategy of fear”, “racially tinged rhetoric” and “falsehoods” in a so-called news article, it has abandoned all pretense of objectivity.

That the Washington Post and New York Times lean left in their editorials is hardly a new discovery, nor is the fact that their reporting has long been biased in favor of the Left.

But it is noteworthy that now even the pretense of objectivity has been abandoned, certainly as far as coverage of President Trump is concerned.

Still, you’ll hear defenders of the news media proclaim that they are being honest in what they believe.  But that is missing the point.  Readers of what are purportedly news articles are looking for facts, not opinions.  The latter were, in the old days, supposedly confined to editorial pages.

To be sure, it was a myth that editorial opinion did not shape the context of news articles.  Many years ago, The Sensible Conservative worked for a conservative opinion journal in New York City.  We joked that the Times’ slogan of “All the News That’s Fit to Print” was more accurately described as “All the News that Fits…”  We meant that the Times featured those stories which were favorable to the Left and downplayed or ignored news which was unfavorable to the Left and/or helpful to Conservatives.

The articles themselves were usually accurate and thus the bias was not obvious.  One didn’t know what wasn’t printed nor that there may have been other facts not disclosed which contradicted the thrust of the news article.  That approach allowed the liberal news media to maintain its façade of objectivity.

No longer.

The irony is that the prevalence of opinion-laced journalism is self-destructive and, hence, serves the political interests of their opponents. Such blatant bias damages the economic interests of the media companies which are paying the salaries of such journalistic pretenders.

Only those on the Left will subscribe to such publications because their contents are politically agreeable.  Non-leftists, both those in the middle and on the Right will put their subscription money elsewhere.  The shattered pretense of objectivity gives them no alternative.

What Does Sincerity or Appearance of Credibility Have to do with Truth?

 Not as much as is commonly thought.

How often have we heard someone being commended for being ‘believable”?

Think of the widespread view that the Kavanaugh “sex assault” hearing featured two people making “very believable” presentations – and each sharply disputing the position of the other.  Certainly, someone (maybe both) was not telling the truth.

That doesn’t mean, necessarily, that one was a liar.  There is a general misconception that a person who says something that is untrue is a liar.  But a person who believes something that is false would seem as believable – credible – as someone who believes what is actual truth.  A liar, on the other hand, knows that what he is saying is false; he does not believe it.  For liars (certainly not all), their manner betrays their insincerity (such as looking down, the tone of the voice, refusal to look the listener in the eye, etc.).  The sincere person believes in what he is saying and so appears truthful.  But the reality is actually only that the person genuinely believes what he is saying.  Plainly, belief does not make an assertion true.

So how does one differentiate behind the conflicting accounts of two people, each of whom appears credible (but obviously one or neither is)?   

This is what judges and juries try to do every day.

In the mid-twentieth century, famed New York City trial attorney Louis Nizer wrote an acclaimed memoir entitled  My Life in Court.  In the book’s introduction, Nizer advised readers that if they learn nothing else from reading the collection of his noteworthy cases it should be this:  in judging a person’s credibility ignore how he testifies – focus instead on what he says.  Simply, does it make sense?  If so, he may be truthful, if not, he probably isn’t.

People tend to act in predictable ways.  If a person claims that he acted in a way one knows is unusual, skepticism is appropriate.

An extreme example:  A witness states that even though someone in a crowded theater where he was present shouted fire and those around him were fleeing, he remained in his seat.  No matter how believable, how creditable the witness seemed, it is highly unlikely that his account was true. 

What Does “Diversity” Mean?

 

Politically, it has become a favorite term of the PC crowd, as in “through diversity, there is strength”.

Is that so?  The honest answer is “it depends”.

In a standard dictionary sense, diversity equates to differences, as in the American population is composed of people who are different from others.

Obviously, unless a characteristic trait is universal (e.g., all humans need to breathe), diversity abounds.

Some types of diversity are plainly fine but unimportant, as in preferences for food, clothing and hairstyles, for instance.  But others can be controversial – racial diversity in groups used to be – and still is in some quarters.

But promoting differences is not always a good thing.  Diversity is often considered desirable to promote societal inclusiveness.  But it can conflict with other social concerns considered desirable such as highest levels of competence possible.  Think, as an example of potential problems with affirmative action in hiring the most qualified fire fighters.  Depending on the quality of those hired and their performance, obtaining diversity along lines of sex and or race might not be an unmitigated good.  Certainly when seeking members of the fire department, one is seeking uniformity of (high) quality, not diversity of competence.

Thus, from a common sense perspective, diversity is not necessarily a strength.

Consider America’s motto (which appears on our coins):  E pluribis unum.  It’s a Latin phrase which means:  Out of many, one.

What does this mean in the context of our nation?

Certainly, it can be interpreted to stand for the fact that the United States of America became one nation when, in 1776, the thirteen colonies banded together.  It can also be viewed as a testament to the joining of people of various heritage and backgrounds into a common enterprise dedicated to individual freedom and respect for the God-given rights of others.  The diversity celebrated was that of origin and locale, not of values held.  Again, that only makes sense.  How can a people be said to join in a common objective if there are significant differences as to what the goals are?   Diversity, on such fundamental questions leads, not to strength, but to national suicide.

In the present day, the Left uses the term “diversity” as shorthand for “multi-culturalism”.  And what does this mean?

It can mean, simply, that different habits, languages and customs of people from different lands are worthy of respect and tolerance, if not acceptance.  But it can also mean that people with views and objectives  at odds with the American creed of liberty and mutual respect should also be welcome. 

And that’s a big problem.  Americans have a right to insist that our nation’s inhabitants adhere to our values – not antagonistic beliefs prevalent in other lands.

 

 

It’s a Shame President Trump Was Excluded from McCain’s Memorial Service.

 

The McCain family reported that the late Senator did not want Donald Trump to attend his funeral service.  The President did not although his daughter Ivanka and Vice President Pence were in the invited audience.

That’s a shame.

John McCain’s memorial service highlighted his often- expressed desire to bring unity to America.  Excluding the President did not serve that objective.

On a personal level, the animosity between the two stubborn men ran deep.  Certainly Senator McCain was greatly offended by the sometimes cruel and nasty comments Donald Trump sent his way.  So McCain’s wishes were understandable.

But one might have expected that this courageous, honorable soul would let his “better nature” prevail instead of insulting the President of the United States (and unavoidably his millions of faithful supporters).  After all, he did forgive his Hanoi jailers for the torture they inflicted. 

The Left “Wrongs” America

 It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Left’s campaign for illegal immigration is a slander on America.

Is that an overstatement?

Consider:

          - Illegal immigrants are termed “undocumented”, as if the difference between those who enter lawfully and those who do not is merely a matter of missing paperwork.

          - A caravan of buses originating in Hondurus travels north through Mexico, carrying passengers seeking asylum in the United States from the violence in their home country.  That offered by the Mexican government is spurned.  Yet CNN, etc., bemoan efforts to slow or stymie their efforts to enter the U.S.

          - Activities by American lawyers in advising would be border-crossers on what to say to immigration officials are favorably highlighted by the liberal media.

          - The U.S. admits over one million immigrants each year who have complied with our laws.

          - America, in its compassion toward foreigners, is more generous than most of the world.

 

America is indeed a compassionate, caring and generous country.  And the above facts prove it is slanderous to charge or suggest otherwise.

But most Americans are also law-abiding and resent, and are angered by, those who are not.  We are a people raised, in general, to be fair and considerate.  And we do not approve of people cutting in front of those waiting “in line” to enter our great land.

The Left is, in effect, accusing America of being uncaring, callous and contemptuous of foreigners.  That’s a lie.

Further, America wants new residents to come for the right reasons.  We welcome those attractedby our open society, religious tolerance, love of individual freedom and who possess the desire to adjust to our culture and mores.  Those who come merely to continue their “old ways” in a new setting are not appreciated.

After all, America is a unique land.  We are not populated largely by people of the same ethnic, racial or tribal backgrounds.  Rather, our nation is founded on ideas.  Thus, we have an expectation – a right to demand – that those who settle here shave that commitment.

The standard for admission into any sovereign nation is not merely that people want to enter; it is also that the citizens want them to.

Are Trump Supporters “Flip-Floppers”?

Max Boot, a right-leaning military affairs writer, expresses contempt for the GOP because recent polling finds that only 40% of Republican voters now support NATO while 56% approve of Trump’s relationship with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

To be sure, these are unusual results for recent times.  Republicans have generally been supporters of an aggressive foreign policy and suspicious of Russia.

The Democratic Party membership has been just the opposite.

But none of this should be cause for disdain.  How many people make independent, considered judgments about foreign affairs?  Not many.  The reality is that party faithful (note the term) take the position of their leadership.

Prior to 1952, when internationalist Dwight Eisenhower became the GOP nominee, the Republican Party had been isolationist for several decades.

These days, Donald Trump, has questioned America’s involvement in NATO and has been friendly toward Russia.  Thus, it’s to be expected that the Party’s membership would be favorably disposed toward those views.

[Actually, it’s surprising that “only” 56% are on Trump’s side regarding Putin considering that polls have Trump’s approval among Republicans at nearly (90%.]

Although I’ve seen no polls, I’m confident that the Democratic base has flipped, too.  Now, they are undoubtedly more pro-Nato and less antagonistic to Russia.  Not coincidentally, they are adopting views contrary to Trump’s.

Thus, the Max Boots of the country need to calm down.  As Trump changes (isn’t that a sure bet?) so will the views of the rank and file.  There is another sure bet.  Republicans are patriots.  They want the best for our country.  For now, their faith is in Donald Trump.  Is it misplaced?

Self-Righteous Conservatives Attack GOP Leaders in Congress

George Will, a long-respected conservative intellectual and columnist, has called for Democrats to take over Congress in protest to the GOP leadership’s perceived unwillingness to confront Pres. Trump on his conduct.

In the view of The Sensible Conservative,  such conservatives (and he’s not alone) are being distinctly unfair and in fact are “self-righteous” as well.

There are, of course, plenty of reasons to criticize Donald Trump.  His off-the-cuff comments are frequently irresponsible and cause embarrassment for the White House and the country.  His conduct during the Helsinki press conference was worse; it was shameful.

So the condemnation expressed by George Will, for instance, is appropriate.  But what’s the purpose of Congressional leaders joining in the critical chorus?

They, unlike pundits, have positions of power and authority.  Their conduct should be guided by that which best serves their objective of shaping appropriate, conservative policies.

The president’s cooperation is essential to the attainment of such goals.  Yet, to put it mildly, Donald Trump does not take kindly to criticism.  His reaction is likely to be a counter-attack and a defiant opposition to his perceived foes’ wishes.  But he does love personal praise.  Those who provide it become presidential favorites.

Of course, one can say that the President shouldn’t act or think this way.  OK.  But Donald Trump is a known quantity and wishes by others that he were different are meaningless.

So Senate leader Mitch McConnell and his House counterpart Paul Ryan are faced with undesirable choices:  Follow Will’s current policy of lambasting the President for his conduct and earn Trump’s open hostility or   look for ways to minimize affronts and seek to commend the President when possible, giving him the benefit of any doubts as to intentions. 

The former course has its appeal.  Feeling self-righteous can be comforting.  But it is an irresponsible position for a policy maker to take.  It dooms any prospect of working with Donald Trump.

The latter choice has its drawbacks, too.  Who wants to be accused of being acquiescent to conduct which on a personal – and policy – level is deserving of strong condemnation?  What kind of an example is that to set for the country?  Not a good one.

Neither is attractive.  But in the real world, a choice must be made.

Choose to be totally ineffective from a policy accomplishment perspective, but morally upstanding or keep on the good side of Donald Trump and preserve the opportunity to make a positive difference.

It is regrettable that George Will, a seemingly sophisticated and worldly person, did not appreciate the Hobson’s choice presented to Republican leaders.

 

 

Another View of Conservatism

Recently, The Sensible Conservative recited various elements of what constitutes the political philosophy of Conservatism.  I emphasized the values that are essential to a healthy, free society…always have been, always will be.

Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist and former Bush (II) Administration official, recently focused on another aspect. 

He opined that the Donald Trump’s conservative constituency is anchored in cultural nostalgia.  He is not criticizing the President’s supporters but rather noting their wish to return to an earlier time.  Back then, the feeling is, America’s standing in the world was not seriously challenged and the society’s values were broadly respected by its inhabitants.

That assessment seems largely accurate but to term the Trump supporters’ attitudes as nostalgic is to miss an important component.  Nostalgia is a wistful look back to a time which will never return.  More is involved than a hopeful wish for what used to be.  Rather, there is a realization on the Right that values which long underpinned our society have been neglected, if not outright ignored.  Think of religion, traditional family structures, respect for human life and patriotism.

A conservative whose philosophy is grounded in history and possesses a skepticism toward the trumpeted virtues of change does not praise the past for what used to be.  But he does recognize that human nature does not change.  And that fact mandates a respect for policies, practices and traditions which sustain a healthy society.  Their survival over millennia is strong evidence of their continuing usefulness – not that they be replaced because modern thinkers view them as old fashioned and therefore outmoded. 

 

Why Do Celebrities Say Such Mean, Vulgar Things?

In the news of late are two examples of crude, bad taste, some would say hate, on display.

Roseanne Barr refers to former top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett as having mixed race and ape heritage.

Canadian Samantha Bee disagrees with President Trump’s immigration policies and feels entitled to apply a crude, sexual term to his daughter.

I’ll readily admit that The Sensible Conservative’s personality, like his political philosophy, is old fashioned.  But, really, how can people speak in public in such disgusting ways?

Both women (neither deserves to be termed a “lady”, another seemingly old fashioned label, I hope all will agree) are celebrities, and as such have popular prominence so I guess they can say anything.

Yet there is more to their sense of unfettered license.  Their audiences seemingly approve, certainly in the case of Samantha Bee.  Her vulgarities were uttered as a part of her stage performance; the audience was enraptured.

Conservatives – and others – were quick to castigate her since the liberal comedienne had clearly “crossed the line”.

What line is that exactly?  Were critics referring to “good taste”?  Bee’s audience was apparently unaware of what that means.

Thus, an entertainer appealing to her audience delivers what she thinks it wants, with a Trump as a target described in the most insulting, crude, vulgar way she can manage.

What about Roseanne Barr?  Her nasty racial references were broadcast via Twitter so it’s difficult to gauge the reception accorded by the recipients.  But ABC was certainly quick to cancel her show.  As a “celebrity,” did she consider herself immune from harsh consequences?  Was she simply hurling epithets she knew would offend?  Was Roseanne Barr aiming at committed leftist Valerie Jarrett with a racial cudgel because she wanted to inflict the maximum hurt on the ex-Obama advisor?

Is Roseanne Barr really a racist or did she merely sound like one?  In any event, she certainly paid the price.  That line was easy for all to spot.

NOTE:  These episodes highlight how silly our entertainment-obsessed culture has become.  What is a “celebrity”?  The term, these days, is commonly affixed to those who have received a degree of popularity.  So we “celebrate” popularity or notoriety itself?  Is accomplishment less important?

Sure, successful entertainers are popular, by definition, but are they to be “celebrated” because they amuse us?

 

The Meaning of Memorial Day

The Meaning of Memorial Day

Memorial Day is more than the unofficial beginning of summer with the opening of the swimming pool or the snow cone place down the road.  It’s more than hot dogs and hamburgers on the grill.  We celebrate it, but why?

Simply put, Memorial Day, formerly known as Decoration Day, is the day we honor those who died in military service to our country.  On this day, we are to remember those who sacrificed their lives to provide freedom for all.

After the Civil War, women’s groups and religious organizations began decorating the graves of fallen soldiers.  By the late 1800s, many cities and towns observed Memorial Day and several states had declared it a legal holiday. In 1971, Memorial Day was declared a national holiday by an act of Congress.

In 1915, after the publication of the poem In Flanders Fields, by Canadian Lt. Colonel John McCrae, many Americans began wearing red poppies on Memorial Day.  (When I was a child, everyone seemed to wear a poppy in remembrance.  Now you don’t see them much.)

After World War I, Memorial Day became an occasion for honoring those who died in all of America’s wars.

At Arlington National Cemetery, on Memorial Day weekend, the graves are decorated with a small flag.  It’s an impressive and moving sight – row after row of headstones, each it its own flag.

On the Sunday before Memorial Day, hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists bearing American flags leave the Pentagon parking lot, travel across the Memorial Bridge, ending up at the Vietnam Memorial.  Known as Rolling Thunder, these men and women honor our Prisoners of War and those who are Missing in Action.

On Memorial Day, itself, Americans are asked to stop whatever they are doing at 3:00 p.m. and “observe in their own way a Moment of Remembrance and respect.”

A suggestion:  Watch or attend the Memorial Day Concert, if you can.  It starts at 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, May 27 and is held on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol.  It’s also shown on PBS at 8:00 p.m.  The concert is meaningful, uplifting and it might make you cry.  It will also make you proud to be an American.

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
    Between the crosses, row on row,
  That mark our place; and in the sky
  The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead.   Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
  Loved and were loved, and now we lie
      In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
  The torch; be yours to hold it high.
  If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
      In Flanders fields.

God Bless America

And all those who have served

“Cultural Appropriation” – Is it Un-American?

Several years ago, on the Mexican holiday known as Cinco de Mayo (May 5), there was an uproar in Los Angeles when several white kids wore sombreros in celebration.  The problem?  Critics said the hats should be worn exclusively by Mexicans.  For others to don the hats was considered “cultural appropriation”.

Just last month, a similar outburst occurred when a caucasian Utah high school senior was pictured on Instagram wearing a “cheongsam” (Chinese style) prom dress.  The attacks focused on the claim that wearing such clothing was appropriate only for those of Chinese extraction.

Huh?

What happened to the concept that America is a melting pot?  Sure, that has been an idealistic objective imperfectly attained.  But the target, historically, has been recognized as one of America’s unique features.

To be an American meant that one accepted the influx of people from all over the world who adopted our ideals.  The old country was left behind.  Of course, ways of the old culture did not vanish upon entry into the new world.  But there was an expected commitment to adapt and assimilate, and that included matters as superficial as outer garments.

Assimilation certainly didn’t result in elimination of old customs or cultural mores but there was integration.  The new citizens – and the old – experienced changes that changed America.  That process was what made our nation America.

Today?  One is hard-pressed to see how cultural segregation is a positive development.  If something as silly as fashion choices can generate anger from the “possessive group”, that is an alarming example of diversity run-amok. 

Is it a problem that a man from India wears a western business suit?  Or that a Vietnamese woman wears a dress instead of an ao dai?  Is that an insult to the “original” wearers?

That is called reductio absurdum.  Alas, our P.C. culture seems to view those who condemn cultural appropriation as deserving respect.

That’s sheer foolishness.  Dismissive laughter is all they deserve.

Was the Attack in Syria in the U.S. National Interest?

In a narrow sense, no.  The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime poses no threat to America.

Yet, more broadly, the U.S. response was essential.

First, President Trump’s reference to “red lines” put America’s credibility on the line again.  President Obama’s empty threat of 2013 had degraded it with untold deleterious effects on our national interests.  (It undoubtedly disheartened our friends and encouraged our foes.  American indeed appeared as a toothless tiger.)  A repeat was an anathema. 

Second, America’s moral leadership is worth upholding.   We backed a century-old proscription against chemical weapons that earned respect for our role in the world of enforcing standards.  To the extent respect  translates into support for the U.S., that’s good for America.

Starbucks – PC Run Amuck

Why is it a media event that a manager of a Philadelphia Starbucks called the police because two people refused to leave the coffee shop?  Apparently, the two individuals were occupying a table and had not placed an order.

Maybe the manager’s decision was harsh and unwelcoming.  But that wasn’t the reason for the upheaval.

The two individuals were black.  So, of course, the PC crowd shouted, they were the subject of the police call only because they were black.  There  couldn’t be any other explanation for the conduct of the manager, could there, that had nothing to do with race?

And, thus, Starbucks announces, having concluded without any disclosed evidence that race was the reason for the ouster of the two men, that all employees are required to receive instruction on racial prejudice. 

Assume for the moment that the manager had been racially discriminatory – The sin of one is to be shared by the thousands of other Starbucks’ employees?  On what basis is that extrapolation made?

Ridiculous, foolish and demeaning for anyone associated with that so-called “progressive” business known as Starbucks. (I’ll admit that I’ve always found their coffee shops to be pretentious and overpriced.  Who knew the “20+ something” baristas were racists, too?)

James Comey – A Self-Righteous Fellow

James Comey is a prime example of Washington hubris in action.  A long-time Department of Justice lawyer turned FBI chief took it upon himself (not his call) last summer to clear Hillary Clinton of criminal charges from her “gross negligence” in handling “top secret” information.  Then, on the eve of the Presidential election, disregarding FBI rules, Comey reopened the Clinton investigation.

Republicans howled in July.  Democrats did so that November.  And each side had good cause.

But no matter.  Comey knew best.  He could only do right, so why are both sides still so upset with him?  After all, the title of his book, A Higher Loyalty, says it all.

The Constitutional Founders knew what they were doing when they strove to insure “Rule of Law”.  But the Comeys of the world will always be with us.  So vigilance is a constant requirement to check the weaknesses of human nature.

Cummings Is Wrong To Oppose Census Citizenship Question

Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings opposes a proposed 2020 census question which would ask: “is the person a citizen?’.

Why?

Cummings, along with many other fellow Democrats, contends that the question will cause a decrease in census participation.

While that may indeed be true, the question as worded is not to blame.  The question does not mention type of non-citizen status.

A census, every ten years, is constitutionally-mandated.  The stated purpose is to determine the number of residents so that Congressional boundaries can be drawn to contain “equal” numbers. 

The census is now used for other reasons as well, including pro-rata distribution of federal funds.  And the Department of Justice wants the question to aid in the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. 

The inclusion of a citizenship question makes sense for another reason, too.  It’s common sense to recognize that citizens are likely to feel a stronger allegiance to the nation than those who are not.  That is a fact that should, potentially, have a bearing on the country’s future immigration policies.

As for the concern about the level of census participants, Federal law forbids the answers from being shared with law enforcement or immigration agencies.

Accordingly, the wise course is to conduct publicity campaigns about the purposes of census questions and the protection provided to respondents.

That is certainly better than Cummings’ efforts to deprive the government of valuable information about America’s populace.

Cummings is simply engaging in demagoguery when he claims, as he did last month, that the Administration is “rushing ahead with a politically- motivated decision that will jeopardize the full, fair and accurate count our Constitution demands.”

 

 

Being Nasty Earns Its Own Rebuke

Laura Ingraham, a bright, usually thoughtful, prime- time star on Fox News, got personal and nasty last week.  Big mistake.

Conservatives ae accustomed to being the targets of personal and unkind attacks from the left.  Ad hominem is necessary when substantial rejoinders are weak.

But responding in kind is rarely a good idea.

Ms. Ingraham took aim at Dave Hogg, a student at the Florida high school where seventeen people were slain, who has been a popular spokesman for anti-gun measures.  She tweeted a snide remark about this young fellow’s rejection for admission by four California colleges.

Why?  Did this failure reflect on his viewpoint?  Hardly.  Did Laura Ingraham believe that his lack of success was a deserved comeuppance for his calls for tightened gun laws?  Nasty.

Attacks by a prominent adult pundit on a seventeen year old, at the very least, seem unfair.  But worse, they reflect poorly indeed on the source when they are personal.

We on the right would be quick to condemn someone on the left who conducted herself that way.  But Laura Ingraham generated little – if any – disapproval from fellow conservatives.

In fact, she expressed regret for her message only after social media exploded with condemnation.  Yet her reaction was mealy-mouthed, expressing her “sorrow” in the venerable “I don’t really mean it but have to placate critics” manner favored by celebrities.  “I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.”

Really?  How about acknowledging that what you wrote was wrong and mean.  It was, regardless of whether it gave offense or not.

We conservatives have enough problems in attracting supporters without being burdened with compatriots who validate the disrespect displayed by our foes.

 

Some Perspective on School Shootings

The horror of the Florida high school shooting which cost seventeen lives cannot be overstated.  And the alarm about the massacre and the need of so many to do something is understandable.  The desire to vent anger by marching in the streets of America makes sense in that regard.

Fortunately, school shootings – despite overflowing publicity – are rare events.  So policy should not be made under the supposition that the threat is substantial and widespread.

Since 1982 (thirty-six years ago), 150 secondary level students and younger have lost their lives in school shootings.   (Today’s school population is over fifty-five million.)

Contrast these national numbers with Chicago’s murder statistics.  In the five year period ending in 2016, 169 youngsters were shot and killed. 

Where is the similar outrage?  And, of course, there is the well-known irony for gun control advocates that Chicago has some of the nation’s toughest anti-gun laws.

Solution for school shootings – horrible but extremely unlikely events for any particular school - would seem best focused on school security as a deterrent (screenings, armed guards and teachers).

As for Chicago’s youth slayings – a far greater risk for that city’s young people – where are the marches?  Does the city need more police, national guardsmen on every corner, a mobilization of the community to stop such violence?  Where are the national demands for action?

Doesn’t the mainstream media care?

Is the “Cold War” Resuming?

It seems so.  Last week, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders declined to term Russia as "friend or foe".  The reluctance to label it seemed odd in light of recent provocations by the Kremlin.

Perhaps the White House, reflecting the President’s desire to work with Vladimir Putin, did not wish to respond with the truth:  Russia is a foe evolving into an enemy (again).

The conclusion is inescapable when one notes Russian activities of recent times –

         -      Poisoning of an ex-Russian spy living in England

         -       Attacking U.S. Forces in Syria

-      Buzzing American planes flying in international airspace

-      Invasion of eastern Ukraine

-      Etc.

What should the U.S. do?  The first version of the Cold War lasted from post WWII to the early 1990s when the military deterrence of U.S. and NATO forces finally wore down the Soviet Union’s ability to “keep-up” and resulted in its disintegration.

Will the same prescription work for the apparent second “go-around”?

Thus far, the extent of the American response has been limited to strong worlds (Nikki Haley, our U.N. Ambassador, in particular) and financial sanctions focused on Putin’s inner circle.

Will that be enough to deter future aggression?   Unlikely.

The U.S. Defense Budget tightened during the Obama Administration due to Congressionally-imposed sequestration policies (a military spending increase was controlled by requirements that it not exceed domestic expenditure hikes) as well as the general antipathy of Democrats toward the military.

That approach is no longer in favor, of course.  So the obvious hostility of Russia (and more foreboding, from a long-term perspective, China) mandates a significant increase in defense spending to return the U.S. to an appropriate “Cold War” footing. 

Reality leaves America no choice.

What is Conservatism?

The Republican Party is the Conservative party, and I am a conservative.

What does that mean?  Conservatism is not an ideology as such but an approach to society and government based on certain principles.

Safeguarding the individual, protecting his rights as a human being, is the primary focus of government.  Those rights flow from his individuality – not his sex, race or ethnicity.

The individual thrives best in a family, in a community which inculcates into each member a sense of responsibility to the community and fellow humans in the exercise of his rights.  Without that, the society withers and so does the individual’s rights.

Human nature needs to be channeled by positive social forces including religion, tradition and the mores of the broader community.

Humans, by nature, strive to control and dominate.  The survival of a free society requires that limits be imposed on the reach of government.  “Power tends to corrupt,” said British statesman Lord Acton,  “and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Respect for tradition does not require a refusal to change but it should serve as a caution.  Tradition exists for reasons that may, or may not, still be valued.

Human nature resists change – revolutionary in particular.  When change is deemed necessary, a “slow goes it” approach is far more likely to succeed than prompt implementation of drastic change.

Human nature prevents the perfection of man.   Utopian schemes, therefore, are always doomed to failure.

 

 

 

Why Does the Liberal Media Use Euphemisms For “Illegal Immigrants”?

Several years ago, the term “undocumented immigrants” gained currency among the Left and their friends in the media (who routinely follow their lead) as a substitution for saying “illegal”.

On one hand, it’s a silly expression.  It’s as if the “document” was lost or left at home.  Maybe the driver who misplaced his license is supposed to tell the police officer who stops him for speeding that, alas, at the moment, he’s “undocumented”.

But from a more serious perspective, the expression is no joking matter.  Consider the distinction we draw between two words:  legal and illegal.  They are diametrically opposed.  But “documented” vs. “undocumented”?  The terms are bureaucratic and emotionally vague.  Who cares?

Is that the point?  Certainly that’s a consequence of the term “undocumented immigrant”?  The focus is on the world “immigrant”  not that person’s status.  Historically, to be an immigrant is a positive.  As the cliché goes, America is a land of immigrants.

But if a person is termed an “illegal immigrant” the focus shifts to the adjective.  And “illegal” is not a positive.

Thus, the implicit message (whether or not intended) of labeling immigrants as “undocumented” is that  the distinction from “documented” is not important.  They – immigrants - with or without papers are all the same, and all have a right to be here.

What’s next, calls for open borders?

Postscript:  I’ll agree that some of those employing the term are simply adopting the Left’s preference from sparing the feelings of those who have done wrong – violating the nation’s immigration laws, for instance.  Why, after all, should people be made to feel responsible for their own conduct?  Aren’t a person’s misdeeds always someone else’s fault such as society’s  or the capitalist economic system

The 2nd Amendment Protects More Than “Hunting Rights”

Seemingly, after every mass shooting involving a high-powered rifle, gun control advocates call for its possession to be heavily regulated or banned.  A frequent reason given is that such a weapon isn’t appropriate for sports hunting, anyway.  And when the AR15 (a semi-automatic version of the military’s M-16 fully automatic rifle) is the weapon, they are right.

But that argument misconstrues the 2^nd Amendment, the purpose of which was to guarantee the rights of Americans to possess firearms for the defense of themselves and their communities.

Read what it says:

          “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was approved (of which, of course, the 2^nd Amendment is a part), Americans had access to muskets and flintlock rifles.  Those were the individual firearms of the day.

Today, the AR15 rifle, a civilian version of its military counterpart, is comparable to the musket of two centuries ago.  It can be a very effective self-defense weapon.

To be sure, firearms have always been mis-used for criminal purposes.  Obviously a rapid-fire AR15 has the capacity to inflict far more damage than a flintlock rifle able to be reloaded only a few times a minute.  But those are matters of degree.  The fact remains that possession of either is a right.  And rights are abused.

Society’s appropriate response must be to focus on thwarting the abusers.  That may require more security at public schools, including metal detectors and guards, to arming willing school personnel and a heightened awareness of society’s potential violent misfits.

What’s the Worth of a Child’s Life?

Seventeen people, mostly children, died in last week’s Florida school slaughter.

Would a security system with metal detectors have thwarted the nineteen year old shooter?  Maybe.

At least it might have which is a lot more than “stricter” gun laws would have done. 

Seemingly after every mass shooting, whether at a a school or a shopping mall, the cry in the media goes up:  “Do Something!”

The usual answer to the “what?” is more gun control.  And that’s almost always the wrong response.  Typically, the laws would not have prevented this shooter from acquiring his arsenal.  His background set off no alarms.  And with millions and millions of firearms in this country (the 2^nd Amendment is alive and well), someone with an application that raises a red flag can always get his weapons illegally.

Well, what about mental health checks?  To be sure most mass killers leave a trail full of warning signs.  But how many millions of people in this country have serious mental problems and who do not gun-down fellow Americans?  Are we, as a country, supposed to detain or confine all of those who “might” become mass murderers?  And what about the person who first gives off deadly clues only when doing the killing?

Evil is and always has been a constant among humankind.  Lamenting its existence won’t make it disappear. Thus, ultimately, focusing on catching the would-be evil doer before the deed is not likely to be very successful. 

Reducing, if not entirely thwarting, the devastation of evil seems much more promising.

All 130,000 of the nation’s public and private schools should have security systems. 

Many schools already have them, for instance, New York City, Boston and Washington D.C.

Such systems are routinely present at professional sports stadiums – both football and baseball.  They are present at courts and government buildings, too.

So why don’t all have them?

Surprisingly, the cost is not prohibitive.  A metal detection machine is about $5000.  If every school had one, that would be $650 million.

Considering an annual Federal Budget in the trillions, that amount seems very palatable.

Our children’s lives are worth it.

 

 

The Insanity of Placing Domestic Spending on a Par with Military Expenditures

In 2011, a budget battle between Democrats and Republicans was resolved by the sides agreeing that spending on domestic projects as well as military requests would be sequestered  with any increases to be in lock-step;.  An increase in defense spending would have to be matched, on a percentage basis, by domestic outlays. 

Certainly there were Republican legislators who resisted the proposal noting that the military needs took priority.  But the Democrats under Obama wanted the balance to tip the other way.  So the compromise was reached.

Pause for a moment.  The military’s role is to protect this country.  If it fails, the concern for perceived domestic needs will be meaningless.  A free, self-governing America will be no more. 

So how can there be a reasonable disagreement as to which recipient of taxpayer funds gets priority?

To be sure, there is disagreement but it is also foolish, so disconnected from real world concerns and worries that those who slight the military can only be ignorant, irresponsible or indifferent to the nation’s best interest.  It’s certainly understandable if one wants to call such people crazy.

It’s no surprise that Elijah Cummings is one of them.

Fortunately, the latest budget leans in the right direction (although not far enough) with defense receiving $160 billion more while domestic spending was hiked by “only” $128 billion.  [Budget hawks, and The Sensible Conservative is one, also are upset with the big increases in non-military spending.  That spending is not a national necessity.  But it was the price to get 60 votes for the budget bill in the Senate.  Without the compromise, there may have been no new money for national security.]