PowerLine – World Apology Tour, 2016 Edition
- World Apology Tour, 2016 Edition
- Academic Absurdity of the Week: Vegansexuality Studies!
- Is corruption thicker than socialism?
- A modest proposal
- Boston Globe United
|World Apology Tour, 2016 Edition
Posted: 11 Apr 2016 12:59 PM PDT
In the news right now is a report that Obama is considering a stop at Hiroshima at some point in the coming months to apologize for our ending World War II decisively there in August of 1945. The New York Sun nails the matter in an editorial today:
It would be wrong of Mr. Obama to go to Hiroshima if his aim there is to apologize. There is no doubt that innocent Japanese — children, in the main — were among the 140,000 who perished in the first strike with an atomic bomb (another 80,000 died at Nagasaki). Their deaths, though, came in consequence of Japan’s own tyranny. What needs to be expressed by any American president is gratitude for the American heroes who brought the war to an end.
But before moving on, it behooves us to ramp up the amps here at Power Line, as I believe we were the first to break the story in the U.S. back in 2011 that Obama had wanted to go to Hiroshima then, but that the Japanese government sent word through diplomatic channels saying, “Please don’t.” Here’s the original post; one excerpt:
One problem for The One: Japan was not amused by this idea. The U.S. embassy in Tokyo cabled Hillary Clinton to suggest with typically gentle diplomatic language that what Obama was proposing would be deeply offensive to Japanese.
I had been tipped off to the story in the Japanese press about this episode by a recent visitor, and within 24 hours Fox News had run with it, and the White House press office was denying it. Keep your eyes on this story over the next few days. I suspect the Japanese are no more interested today than they were in 2011 at serving as a stage prop for Obama’s moral vanity.
|Academic Absurdity of the Week: Vegansexuality Studies!
Posted: 11 Apr 2016 11:59 AM PDT
It’s only Monday, but we have the clear winner for the academic absurdity of the week, from Feminism & Psychology, another must-read journal:
Annie Potts, New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies
Jovian Parry, New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies,
The terms ‘vegansexuality’ and ‘vegansexuals’ entered popular discourse following substantial media interest in a New Zealand-based academic study on ethical consumption that noted that some vegans engaged in sexual relationships and intimate partnerships only with other vegans. At this time it was suggested that a spectrum existed in relation to cruelty-free consumption and sexual relationships: at one end of this spectrum, a form of sexual preference influenced by veganism entailed an increased likelihood of sexual attraction towards those who shared similar beliefs regarding the exploitation of non-human animals; at the other end of the spectrum such a propensity might manifest as a strong sexual aversion to the bodies of those who consume meat and other animal products. The extensive media hype about (and public response to) vegansexuality was predominantly negative and derogatory towards ‘vegansexuals’ and vegans/vegetarians. A particular aggression was evident in online comments by those positioned as heterosexual meat-eating men. In this article we examine the hostile responses to vegansexuality and veganism posted by such men on internet news and journalism sites, personal blogs and chatrooms. We argue that the rhetoric associated with this backlash constructs vegansexuals — and vegans more generally — as (sexual) losers, cowards, deviants, failures and bigots. Furthermore, we suggest that the vigorous reactions of self-identified omnivorous men demonstrate how the notion of alternative sexual practices predicated on the refusal of meat culture radically challenges the powerful links between meat-eating, masculinity and virility in western societies.
Surprisingly, you can download the complete article for free, instead of the usual $35 Sage Publications tries to charge for most such articles. You’re welcome.
|Is corruption thicker than socialism?
Posted: 11 Apr 2016 09:26 AM PDT
Aspects of the campaign financing practices of New York City mayor Bill de Blasio are under federal corruption investigation, the New York Times reports. The investigation centers around two businessmen with ties to de Blasio — Jona Rechnitz and Jeremy Reichberg. Federal agents reportedly have interviewed roughly 20 senior New York Police Department officials as part of an examination of the ways Rechnitz and Reichberg wielded influence in New York City.
Now, apparently, the investigation has led to an “aggressive review” of de Blasio’s fundraising.
According to the Times, Rechnitz and Reichberg served on the committee that planned de Blasio’s inaugural celebration in 2014. Rechnitz and his wife each contributed $4,950, the maximum amount allowed, to his 2013 campaign. Rechnitz raised about $45,000 for de Blasio.
The Times finds it unclear at this point what specific aspect of the mayor’s fund-raising is under scrutiny and how it relates to the conduct of the two businessmen. However, the De Blasio administration “has been dogged by investigations into corruption at the New York Police Department and a controversial land deal that benefited a donor’s company,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
Meanwhile, de Blasio has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president over Bernie Sanders. Does this mean that corruption is thicker than socialism?
The Journal wonders how news of the federal investigation of de Blasio will affect the upcoming Democratic primary in New York. Sanders apparently won’t raise the matter, presumably because de Blasio remains fairly popular among New York Dems and quite popular among blacks.
This doesn’t negate the possibility that the probe of de Blasio will affect the Clinton-Sanders race. However, any impact seems likely to be marginal. If corruption bothered Democratic voters appreciably, Clinton wouldn’t be headed to the nomination.
|A modest proposal
Posted: 11 Apr 2016 08:47 AM PDT
A political shakeup is occurring in my neck of the woods. Our congressman, leftist Chris Van Hollen, is running for the Maryland Senate seat that Barbara Mikulski will vacate. He’s opposed by radical leftist Donna Edwards.
Rep. Edwards, an African-American, has a reputation for poor constituent services. Her predecessor Albert Wynn was no star in this department. My daughter, who interned for Rep. Connie Morella, tells me that Wynn’s constituents used to seek assistance from Connie. Reputedly, Edwards is worse than Wynn in this department.
With Van Hollen attempting to move on up, our congressional seat becomes vacant. The two leading contenders are thought to be Chris Matthews’ wife Kathleen, a former local news anchor, and Jamie Raskin, a lefty law professor.
There is also David Trone, the owner of Total Wine & More, who is using his fortune to finance his run. I know nothing about Trone’s politics, but considering the opposition, I’ll be rooting for the wine merchant on the Democratic side. (Our district is reliably Dem.)
With the possible exception of Trone, I’d be embarrassed to have any of these people represent me in Congress. The government would have to be on the verge of setting fire to my house before I’d be inclined to ask Donna Edwards or Chris Matthews’ wife for help.
Which brings me to my modest proposal. Why not allow people to opt out of representation by their Senator or Representative? Why not allow them, for a fee, to be represented by someone else?
You can pay extra to send your kids to an out-of-state public university. Shouldn’t you be able to pay extra for out-of-state congressional representation?
The wealthy already have this option, effectively. They can make large contributions to politicians all over the country and then seek (and, within reason, expect to obtain) their help.
Few can afford to make hefty contributions, however. Thus, I modestly propose that by paying, say, $100 a year, a family be allowed to come under the representation of the Senator or Congressman of its choice. For Senators, one could choose to pay just $500 for a full term. There should also be a discount for seniors.
It would be a bargain for me to pay no more than $200 a year to be represented by Tom Cotton in the Senate and Mia Love in the House. My senior discount would make this all the more attractive.
If this proposal seems too radical, geographic limitations could be placed on the opt-in. It could be limited, for example, to Senators and Congressmen from neighboring states. For now, this would enable me to select Sen. Pat Toomey and Rep. Alex Mooney.
As a conservative, I generally don’t like to disturb time-honored rules of governance. But it’s common knowledge that the nation has gradually chosen sides along geographic lines (Red States, Blue States, and all that). Shouldn’t those of us stranded behind enemy lines, so to speak, get some relief?
|Boston Globe United
Posted: 11 Apr 2016 08:15 AM PDT
When thinking about the Boston Globe faux-edition attacking Donald Trump, remember that if a conservative non-profit organization—let’s hypothetically call them something like “Citizens United”—published the same thing, liberals would want it to be illegal.
Of course, as Trump rightly pointed out in response, the Boston Globe is a “non-profit” organization (heh), but in the liberals’ worldview it is perfectly fine for a “newspaper” to produce a partisan hit piece on a candidate, but the speech of any organization that is not a certified member of the media should be heavily regulated by the government. The Boston Globe is a corporation too; I have yet to hear a Citizens United-hating liberal offer a coherent distinction between the political speech of a corporation known as the New York Times and non-profit corporation like the NRA that publishes the American Rifleman. (Though the New York Times endorsement of John Kasich does soften me a bit on the idea of authorizing government censorship.)
Given that most reporters in the mainstream media are rightly thought of simply as Democrats with bylines, it is clear that the Citizens United fanaticism of the left is an attempt to censor their political opponents.