Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up.
American Conservative: “Iranians: Not Pining for American Intervention,” by Akhilesh “Akhi“ Pillalamarri
Are Iranians yearning for the U.S. to support an overthrow of the
current Iranian regime? Pillalamarri argues “no,” as Iran in the past
has had negative experiences with foreign intervention into its
country. Pillalamarri also expresses a dim view about the resistance
against Iran, warning that it could turn out to be an even harder-line
regime than what currently exists.
The Federalist Radio Hour: “Here’s What Is Happening in Turkey,” and The Federalist: “Turkey Has Only Its President to Blame for Its Financial Crisis,” by Helen Raleigh
I will probably listen to that episode of the podcast again, as there
were details that I missed. The Helen Raleigh article provides helpful
background about Turkey’s current situation, but the podcast offers
more context and nuance. The podcast offers much more than a negative
portrayal of Erdogan by discussing his possible motivations and appeal.
The Nation: “‘An Eternal Night of Persecution and Death’: Activists Speak Out about Nicaragua’s Crackdown,” by Maia Hibbett
On one of my Current Events Write-Ups, I posted an interview with
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. This article is a leftist critique
of him. It presents him as inefficient, repressive, and selective about
whom his social programs help. Ironically, it presents highlights that
some of his opponents deem him to be too far to the right! And it was
interesting to learn about his anti-abortion policies.
Townhall: “John Brennan Was Long a Danger to US National Security,” by Humberto Fontova
And, of course, since this is Humberto Fontova, the article will have something to do with Fidel Castro.
The Federalist Radio Hour: “Security Clearances Are Not Free Speech and Other Ideas the Media Elite Get Wrong”
The title is snarky and opinionated, but the discussion itself was
actually quite thoughtful and three-dimensional. It tackled, of course,
the John Brennan issue, but it also discussed social media censorship.
“America’s Burgeoning Civil War,” by Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin is a pastor and was the 2008 Presidential candidate for
the conservative Constitution Party. In this article, though, he
transcends the usual right-left polarities. Some notable lines: “The
left is wrong to dismiss the attacks on the Second Amendment liberties
of gun owners, and the right is wrong to dismiss the attacks on the
Fourth Amendment liberties of blacks and other minorities.” “Quite
frankly, I am tired of hearing so-called patriots talk about the
‘murder’ of Lavoy Finicum while completely ignoring the murders of
dozens, if not scores, of young black men every year by policemen all
over America. The double standard is sickening!” “On this subject, I
totally support the efforts of Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders to overhaul
the bail system in America’s criminal justice system…Don’t tell me we
need bigger jails. All that does is feed the Police State and further
tax the taxpayers. What we need is more justice in the justice system.
The bail system is a dinosaur that needs to be fossilized.”
Townhall: “Prison Reform: An Unlikely GOP Issue,” by Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas gives examples of what President Trump and the Senate are
doing to bring about prison reform so that convicts can re-enter
society. “Secretary of Energy Rick Perry noted that while governor of
Texas he was able to ‘shut down eight prisons, saving more than $3
billion dollars a year in prison costs, and conservatives look at that
now and go, ‘That was smart on crime.'”
Tomgram: “William Hartung, Gunrunning USA”
I remember reading right-wingers criticizing the “UN Gun Grab.”
President Trump is pursuing the opposite sort of policy, of course.
William Hartung argues that is not good.
Townhall: “Charlottesville: A Clash of Left vs. Left?”, by Arthur Schaper
This week marked the one-year anniversary of the clash in
Charlottesville, between people protesting the removal of a Robert E.
Lee statue and the “Antifa” people protesting against them. Schaper
argues that both sides are different shades of the left: both are
authoritarian and are critical of capitalism. The difference is that
the former is nationalist and racist, whereas the latter is not. To
give you a taste: “One of the rally’s keynote speakers, Richard Spencer,
the godfather of the ‘Alt-Right’, despises the founding principles of
our country, including limited government, individual liberty, and the
divine origin of natural rights. Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary ‘Death of a
Nation’ brilliantly presented in one interview with Spencer what the
founder of the Alt-Right movement has expounded on for years. He is a
left-wing statist invested in the ultimate authority of the state,
socialized medicine, and the nationalization of public lands. He is a
national socialist, but a socialist nonetheless. Jason Kessler organized
this ‘Unite the Right’ rally, but he’s actually another left-winger. He
voted for Barack Obama.He participated heavily in the Occupy Wall
Street Movement and once touted himself as a liberal organizer. The
reports of Kessler’s left-wing leanings came out within days of the
Charlottesville clash last year, but few actually read about it.” See
the article itself for the links documenting these claims.
Townhall: “Eyes On The Prizefighters,” by Ann Coulter
I loved this part, as I was thinking the same thing: “Last year,
President Trump blamed ‘both sides’ for the bedlam at the rally to
defend Confederate statues — sending the media into a moral panic.
Naturally, Trump also denounced white supremacy, for anyone who missed
it the first million times he did so…BOTH SIDES? But ‘Antifa’ is pure as
the driven snow! They are anti-fascist! To blame ‘both sides’ was to
endorse fascism.” Ann Coulter is being sarcastic, of course.
ABC “This Week” Transcript 8-12-18: Kellyanne Conway, Rep. Elijah Cummings and Michael Avenatti
Several things stood out to me in this episode. For one, Elijah
Cummings was impressive because he refused to cater to media
sensationalism by declaring that Donald Trump is a racist; he still has
grave concerns, of course. Kellyanne was awesome because she does not
take crap from anybody. Republican strategist Ana Navarro made an
interesting point about Omarosa: maybe she is an opportunist, betraying
Trump for self-promotion, but birds of a feather flock together; Trump
attracts people who do that sort of thing. And Stormy Daniels’ lawyer,
Michael Avenatti, is planning on running for President. He sounded
reasonable in his policy positions. He is the only potential Democratic
candidate so far whom I do not find annoying. He is tough without
being over-the-top and self-righteously dramatic in his criticisms of
Trump. But my track record on this sort of thing is flawed. I was
impressed by Herman Cain in 2012 after watching him on ABC “This Week,”
and that did not turn out well!
New York Post: “The SPLC’s Terrible Year Just Got Worse”
I ordinarily do not care for the New York Post. But I liked
this: “It’s been a rough year for the Southern Poverty Law Center —
deservedly so. And it just got more difficult, thanks to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions. The SPLC, formed in 1971 as an aggressive
civil-rights nonprofit law firm, has become the left’s go-to arbiter of
what constitutes a hate group. Its pronouncements are quoted without
challenge by the news media, and it has an endowment of $300 million,
enriched by major corporate donors. Yet its overly broad definition of
‘hate’ often goes far beyond truly vile outfits to include people and
groups that simply don’t toe a politically correct line. That’s why the
SPLC two months ago had to pay $3.4 million and publicly apologize to
Maajid Nawaz, whom it had falsely labeled an ‘anti-Muslim extremist.’
(He’s actually a practicing Muslim who opposes extremism.)”
Salon: “Ben Shapiro baits Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez: A bad-faith challenge is rejected,” by Yoav Litvin
This article kind of made me sick! It was so snooty liberal.
Believe me, I understand that not everyone is good at debating. I am
not. But, as a candidate, Ocasio-Cortez eventually will have to debate
someone who holds contrary positions. I suppose she can pull a Nixon
(1968 and 1972) and not debate her opponent, but that would not look
good.
National Review: “Andrew Cuomo Was Never That Great,” by Charles C.W. Cooke
And, speaking of intolerant, dramatic liberals, Charles C.W. Cooke depicts New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as one.
The Federalist: “Why Preschool Doesn’t Usually Do Much Good for Small Children,” by Auguste Meyrat
Auguste Meyrat has background and credentials in the field of
education. Like a lot of conservatives, he argues that kids who were in
pre-school do not perform better academically than those who were not.
Remember what Republican Presidential candidate Arnold Vinick said in
the TV show, The West Wing: “Head Start doesn’t work!” But
Meyrat also offers arguments for why it doesn’t work: that is not the
age to barrage kids with a bunch of academic learning.
Robert Reich: “How Trump’s War on Regulation Is Trickle-Down Economics”
Not much new here, in terms of arguments, but the reason this stood
out to me was due to a discussion I overheard at church last Sunday.
Someone was wondering why people cannot suck up water from the lakes and
use that to put out forest fires, and the pastor responded that this is
not allowed. Robert Reich weighs in: “Last week [President Trump] even
blamed regulations for the wildfires now ravaging California. They’re
‘made so much worse,’ he tweeted, ‘by the bad environmental laws which
aren’t allowing massive amount[s] of readily available water to be
properly utilized.’ I have news for Trump. California’s tough
environmental laws are among America’s (and the world’s) last bulwarks
against climate change. And it’s climate change – not regulation –
that’s reaping havoc across California as well as much of the rest of
the world. Oh, and Californians are using water very carefully.”
Reason: “Subsidies and Price Controls Aren’t the Answer to Skyrocketing Prescription Drug Prices,” by Nikhil Sridhar
Not much new here, but this article reminds me of where I find
libertarian/conservative analysis to be limited, and where I find it to
be intriguing or helpful. Let’s start with limited. The article may be
right that Medicare increases the cost of prescription drugs by
elevating demand; similar arguments are made against a single-payer
health care system. I just find that argument to be cold because it
seems to imply that we should bring down prices by depriving people of
medication. The article argues against the government negotiating lower
drug prices with pharmaceuticals because that could result in
pharmaceuticals having less money for research and development; but
couldn’t patent reform, which this article endorses, have the same sort
of effect? Maybe. I somewhat like a proposal that I read by James
Carville and Paul Begala: let the pharmaceuticals have a patent for a
period of time to reap the fruits of their labors, but at a certain
point the patent expires and others can develop the drug, too, resulting
in competition and lower drug prices. Sridhar’s article is critical of
the FDA and how it slows down the release of new drugs, resulting in
high prices. What about safety? Well, Sridhar argues that the threat
of lawsuits can ameliorate that problem: pharmaceuticals will develop
safe drugs, without the FDA rigamarole, to avoid being sued by people
harmed by drugs.
Vox: “Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan to Save Capitalism” vs. National Review: “Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything”
Two opposite perspectives on Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Accountable
Capitalism Act. The former article is better than the latter in that it
is more detailed; perhaps I would have done better to have dug up a
Heritage Foundation critique of the bill. But it is interesting how two
people can look at the same bill and reach astoundingly different
conclusions. Both are obviously discussing the same details, but one
says that Warren’s bill is good because it does not rely on the welfare
state, whereas the other argues that Warren’s bill is socialistic
redistributionism.
Townhall: “Fear and Loathing of Jordan Peterson,” by Suzanne Fields vs. Jacobin: “Jordan Peterson’s Bullshit,” by Harrison Fluss
I have listened to things by and about Jordan Peterson, but I have
felt as if my knowledge of him is rather spotty and scattered. These
articles, one positive and one negative, helped me to place his thought
and his significance within some sort of narrative. If someone were to
ask me, “Who is this Jordan Peterson, and what does he believe?”, I
could now rattle off a brief answer.
The Federalist: “Examine the Key Figures Who Shaped Our Understanding of the Constitution,” by Michael Rosen
I don’t have anything to say about this article, only that it was informative.