Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Ten things Jews don't get about Gentiles

10.   Kabbalah Center:  you want to stay a goy, great.  You want to convert to Judaism, well…  But the Kabbalah Center?  Really?  Mormonism at least has magic underwear.
9.  Bacon, ok.  But Canadian bacon?
8.  What do you do with all the time you don’t use for reading?
7.  What is that thing with your car?  What, are they going to bury you in it?
6.  People who retire, have money, and still stay in the Midwest.
5.  Why would a non-Palestinian gentile be passionate about Israel, for or against?  I haven’t met a Jew who is passionate about Tonga.
4.  Our sons have their first alcoholic beverage at age 8 days.  And you expect yours to wait until he is 21?
3.  Hunting:  you wander around in the cold and wet from morning to night, and if, you are very skilled and lucky, you wind up with an animal that you have to butcher that is full of metal.  Easier to stand in line at Zabar’s.
2.  If you have something to say, interrupt, dammit!
1.  You actually want to convert to Judaism?

Sunday, November 20, 2016

The Great "Racism" Circle Dance

You told us Ronald Reagan was a racist, because he appointed racists like Jeff Sessions (who sent a Klansman to death row and desegregated the schools in Alabama).

Then you told us that George H. W. Bush was a racist.
Then you told us that Bob Dole was a racist.
Then you told us that George W. Bush was a racist.
Then you told us that John McCain was a racist.
Then you told us that Mitt Romney was a racist.

Then you told us that Donald Trump was REALLY a racist, that this time you really meant it, unlike all those other times when you were just crying wolf.  And this time you could prove it, because he appointed racists like Jeff Sessions (re-elected in 2014 with 97% of the vote, in a state that is 27% African American).

Then you wonder why we have tuned you out.

Making Josephus Great Again!

I make the Jewish historian, priest, rebel, and traitor Josephus great again, in this interview with Nehemiah Gordon.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Civil Rights Amendment XXVIII (proposed)

Civil Rights Amendment XXVIII (proposed)
Section 1.  The first section of the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.  All persons born in the United States, and having at least one parent who is a citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent resident, as well as all persons naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Section 3.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  
Section 4.  Each State shall have the power to examine the qualification to citizenship of any person, provided it does so in conformity with the laws of the United States and this Constitution.
Section 5.  Only a citizen of the United States shall have the right to vote in any election or vote on legally binding measures held under the authority of the United States or any State, territory, or federal District.
Section 6. Congress shall have the power to determine by law a form of identification to be required of each voter in any election, or vote on legally binding measures, held under the authority of the United States or any State, territory, or federal District. Section 7. The United States shall guarantee to each state, on the petition of the executive thereof, the exclusion of such persons as are not lawfully present in the United States.
Section 8. A naturalized citizen, who has been resident in the United States or held civil or military office under the United States for a total of twenty-one years, shall have all the rights of a natural born citizen including the right to be elected and to serve as President or Vice President.
Section 9.  Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

{Thoughts, critiques, and drafting suggestions welcomed in the comments below. --MSK}

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Sharing the World

Since 1941, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt dictated the principles of the Atlantic Charter to Winston Churchill, American elites have thought in terms of “running the world.” Practical discussions of foreign policy today, begin with the recognition that the present task is not to run the world but to share it...
My latest article at American Greatness.

Monday, September 26, 2016

She blinded me with science

Hillary Clinton says "I believe in science."  Well, I don't, and you shouldn't either.  I explain why at American Greatness.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Political Correctness and the Post-Growth Economy

Daniel Henninger writes that progressives “have chopped American society into so many offendable identities that only a Yale freshman can name them all.”

Regulation is a burden.  Let us be charitable and assume that there is no regulation out there that does not provide some benefit to somebody, and be more charitable and assume that that benefit is somehow related to the intended or ostensible purpose of that regulation.   Still, all regulations impose costs, and keeping people from engaging in what would otherwise be lawful activities mean that we get less of these activities and fewer people engaging with them.  As the governments of developed countries promulgate more and more regulations, say, to regulate a factory to reduce the degree to which it pollutes the environment or to regulate the factory floor to ensure that there are no pinups that make it a “hostile environment,” otherwise profitable economic activities are regulated out of existence.  Government grows, the economy slows.  Often in ways that cannot be spotted by the most eagle-eyed deficit hawk because the salaries of the regulators are only a tiny portion of the burden of regulation that falls on producers and consumers.

Political correctness is regulation, not always government regulation, of speech and writing aiming at regulation of thought and action.  In particular, regulation, as Henninger hints, favors the articulate over the inarticulate, the talkers over the makers.  Or rather, it forces the makers to lawyer up with Yale graduates or eliminates from the ranks of the makers those, like Brendan Eich, who themselves are not so articulate or who articulate wrongthought.  The result is less production, less wealth, fewer jobs, and greater inequality, because opportunities are available only to those who add to inspiration and perspiration well-tuned instincts for what can and cannot be thought or said.

Corporations are increasingly asked to police their employees.  One Harvard Law professor has demanded that a company fire or discipline anyone who expresses an allegedly sexist criticism of Hillary Clinton, and that companies that fail to do so are liable for creating a “hostile environment” that promotes harassment and discrimination against their female employees.  I am sure that for most Harvard Law professors and students virtually any criticism of Hillary Clinton is sexist.   Forget that for the moment, and put aside the danger such attitudes, whether enshrined in law or acted on by regulators in the absence of any colorable legal authority, pose to fundamental constitutional rights or basic aspects of republican government such as the accountability of government officials, even female or minority ones.  Such regulations burdens the economy.

Now some of that regulation, sensible people would agree, is worth the cost.  Nobody would want to legalize the casting couch, or let employers treat their female coworkers as perks of the job.   Mad Men is self-congratulatory progressive ideological porn, but Bill Wilder made this same point in The Apartment, in 1960 America, when JFK’s sexual adventures, like Hillary Clinton’s health today, were regarded by the respectable media as not fit to print.
But in 2016 America, and not only in America, people are starting to ask if all of this policing is justified or desirable.  Do we need the FDA to ensure that people cannot enjoy raw-milk cheeses?  Do we need the EEOC and the Justice Department to ensure that companies do not use standardized tests to screen potential employees for intelligence and relevant knowledge?  

We certainly need a President who knows that to ask these questions is not to answer them.