Author Archive: Stephen Green

TONI AIRAKSINEN: Stanford U. Teaches ‘Male Privilege’ With Its ‘Men and Masculinities Project.’ “We acknowledge that male identity is a social privilege, and the aim for this project is to provide the education and support needed to better the actions of the male community rather than marginalize others.”

We can’t have men feeling good about themselves when their are so many “aggrieved” people who prefer misery for themselves and others.

AMELIA HAMILTON INTRODUCES her Growing Patriots podcast. “In the first episode, I’m joined by 5 year-old Jack as we discuss the very first voyage to Jamestown with Ann Price-Hardister of the Jamestown Yorktown Foundation.”

I haven’t had a chance to listen to the podcast yet, but her Growing Patriot’s Guide to the American Revolution was a hit with my younger son when he was at the right age for it.

TONI AIRAKSINEN: UW science school dismisses science on sex differences.

“If men and women are different, then we should expect them to make different choices,” Reges wrote, going on to summarize the findings of a University of Pittsburgh study, a study published by the National Academy of Science, and one from Leeds Beckett University.

These studies discovered, respectively, that women have broader academic interests due to their higher verbal ability, that women are choosing not to enter STEM fields, and that countries with the most gender equality have the least women entering STEM.

Reges concluded that “Women can code, but often they don’t want to. We will never reach gender parity,” though he did concede during an interview with Campus Reform that parity might be reached in the case of Orwellian social engineering.

Four days after the article was published, UW School of Science Director Hank Levy emailed the campus to say that “We disagree with the conclusions drawn in the article.”

When reached by Campus Reform, however, Levy would not say whether he had actually read Reges’ article, nor whether he reviewed the research Reges cited within. Spokeswoman Kristin Osborn replied on his behalf, and similarly declined to clarify if the research had been reviewed before it was condemned.

Science, in the modern vernacular, is the study of anything which supports your predetermined narrative and the rejection of everything which doesn’t.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. The Left’s Spite Against Justice Kennedy Should Warn Anyone Who Tries To Please Them.

The highest-profile complaint comes from Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case legalizing same-sex marriage, in an opinion authored by Kennedy. Writing for Time magazine, Obergefell seems to think Kennedy owed people a duty beyond the oath of his office: “I struggle to understand how Justice Kennedy can look at our current environment and retire, knowing that his legacy of compassion and dignity, not to mention the civil rights of millions of people, are in serious risk.”

He adds: “Before his retirement announcement, as a member of the LGBTQ community, I saw Kennedy as something of a hero,” with the implication that he is not now. That’s some way to thank Kennedy for his service.

In a column at Slate, “Anthony Kennedy Just Destroyed His Legacy as a Gay Rights Hero,” Mark Joseph Stern makes overt what Obergefell implies: if Kennedy wanted to protect his legacy, he had a duty to retire while a Democrat occupied the White House.

At The New Republic, Andrew Cohen begrudgingly acknowledges that Kennedy’s decisions on LGBTQ preferences, abortion, and criminal procedure “did deliver votes on occasion to progressive causes.” But Cohen’s main thrust is that “these liberal ‘victories’ are far overshadowed by all the heavy lifting Kennedy did on behalf of conservative causes over the decades.”

Similarly sour sentiments run through the reactions of a number of prestigious law professors Politico surveyed, including Geoffrey R. Stone, Sanford V. Levinson, Corey Brettschneider, Michael Waldman, Robert Post, Barry Friedman, and John Culhane.

“How dare an old man enjoy a well-earned retirement before I’m done with him?” isn’t the sentiment of someone who can long be pleased by anything or anyone.

HMM: NSA deleting hundreds of millions of call records, raising questions about surveillance program’s viability.

In a written follow-up statement to the Associated Press, the NSA said it is “following a specific court-authorized process,” but technical irregularities resulted in the production of some call records that the NSA “was not authorized to receive.”

The NSA faced a legal battle surrounding its Internet surveillance data collection program in 2017, when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union could move forward.

David Kris, a member of the Justice Department during the Obama administration, told the New York Times that the agency’s announcement represents a “failure” of the Obama administration to properly implement the Freedom Act, a surveillance law passed in 2015 after the controversial Patriot Act expired.

That seems like kind of a big deal to have happened under a “remarkably scandal-free” administration.

LIZ SHELD’S MORNING BRIEF: The Morning Briefing: Some Democrats Try and Moderate and Much, Much More. “The Democrats are trying to moderate in time for the midterm elections but they are not well-positioned to do so. Their base is fired up against Trump, but the rest of the voters are turned off by the Democrats extreme political views. So if they tune down their rhetoric, the nutters won’t be motivated to show up at the polls, but if they don’t tone it down the rest of the voters won’t show up. What to do?”

“Lose” has a nice ring to it.

AUF WIEDERSEHEN? Angela Merkel fights for survival as interior minister Seehofer says he will turn away migrants at the border.

After an “ineffective” two-hour meeting on Saturday night between Mrs Merkel and Mr Seehofer, the two leaders met with their respective parties for separate meetings in Munich and Berlin on Sunday night.

According to information from the German press agency, Mrs Merkel has spoken to her executive committee of a “very serious” situation.

If Mr Seehofer is not satisfied he could now make true to his threats and close Germany’s borders, forcing Mrs Merkel to sack him, which would tear apart Germany’s already shaky coalition government.

This could lead to fresh elections, which would likely further embolden the far-Right and lead to political crisis in both Germany and Europe.

Personally, I’m much more comfortable with “far-Right” Germans closing the nation’s border than with irredentist leftist Germans marching through the Polish border.

SCENES FROM WEIMAR LATIN AMERICA: Venezuela’s inflation hits more than 40,000% as everyone dumps its currency ‘like a hot potato.’

Economists point out that Maduro runs the unorthodox policies they say have pushed the country into economic crisis. The socialist leader has repeatedly refused international aid to Venezuela.

“It’s internal,” Hanke said. “Government spending continues to accelerate and the sources of revenue start drying up.”

The government has defaulted on a majority of their outstanding bonds, which economists estimate add up to about $60 billion. Foreign exchange reserves have fallen by about $2.5 billion in the last three months, according to analysis by Capital Economics.

As state-run oil industry PDVSA falls apart, economists say a rise in global oil prices is adding to the pain. Brent crude oil is up more than 64% this year. And as President Donald Trump cracks down on Iran via zero-tolerance oil sanctions, the international benchmark has rallied more than 8% this week.

Production at PDVSA — which accounts for 95% of export earnings in the country and a quarter of gross domestic product — was cut in half from January 2016 to January 2018, according to the US Energy Information Administration. And as the crisis deepens, operations are continuing to wane.

Venezuela began its “experiment” with Bolivarian Socialism when crude oil was about $17 per barrel. Now it’s closing in on $80. And the country is broke, teetering on being a failed state.

That’s some awfully bad luck.

JONATHAN TURLEY: If Rod Rosenstein feels conflicted, he should simply recuse himself.

The recent reports describe conflicting emotions of Rosenstein, ranging from anger to rationalization to despondence. Indeed, the dogged reluctance of Rosenstein to recuse himself is itself concerning. The controversy over FBI investigations has been fueled by the key role of figures like FBI official Peter Strzok, who harbored clearly antagonistic views against Trump. Strzok was eventually removed from his senior position, but long after critical decisions were made in the Clinton email and Russian investigations. This taint has now undermined the integrity of the investigation and the bureau itself.

Where Strzok’s failure is based on personal bias, however, Rosenstein’s failure is based on personal interest in the investigation. The New York Times reported that, according to multiple close associates and friends of Rosenstein, he “appeared conflicted” in the aftermath of the Comey firing. Consider this passage: “He alternately defended his involvement, expressed remorse at the tumult it unleashed, said the White House had manipulated him, fumed how the news media had portrayed the events and said the full story would vindicate him.”

If true, it is astonishing that Rosenstein did not recuse himself, or that his colleagues did not strongly encourage it. It is obviously problematic that Rosenstein selected and then supervised a special counsel in an investigation that he hoped would “vindicate him.” Rosenstein also will play a key role in the scope and release of the eventual special counsel report, which will by necessity touch on his actions and role.

There is no reason for such an apparent or actual conflict to exist, as Rosenstein is not essential to the investigation. He can recuse himself and leave the supervision of Mueller to a designated subordinate, in the interests of the integrity of the investigation.

The answer to the question “Why won’t Rosenstein recuse himself?” might lie in the final clause of that last sentence.