Connect with us

Opinion

Eric Swalwell’s white male privilege and other commentary

Published

on

Eric Swalwell's white male privilege and other commentary

Conservative: Swalwell’s White Male Privilege

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) is upset about Neera Tanden’s faltering nomination, tweeting that he’ll no longer be able to “tell little girls of South Asian descent that they’ll have the same opportunities in life as white men,” reports National Review’s David Harsanyi. Clearly, there’s “nothing Democrats can’t reduce to crass racial terms these days.” Swalwell could tell those girls that South Asian American women are “already incredibly successful” as CEOs, directors and even the vice president of the United States. And if they “suffer setbacks for having become acerbic, partisan hacks” — as Tanden is suffering for her vicious tweets — “that’s their own fault.” In return, the girls might ask Swalwell why he, “and not a young woman of South Asian descent, is representing ‘one of the largest Indian-American districts in the US’?”

From the left: Dems Failed Needy Kids

“Millions of American schoolchildren will soon have missed a year of in-person instruction, and we may have inflicted permanent damage on some of them,” laments The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof. And it’s the “Democratic governors and mayors who too often let schools stay closed even as bars opened” and have “presided over one of the worst blows to the education of disadvantaged Americans in history.” Rich kids in private schools with Internet access were able to “glide on through,” mostly unaffected; while marginalized youth were “left behind.” And some teachers are still pushing for schools to remain closed. “The country has “failed millions” — we must “right this wrong.”

From the right: Wage Hike Can Spur Crime

“A surprising body of research links” minimum-wage increases to spikes in crime by “those most likely to lose jobs” as a result of the wage hike, warns Charles Fain Lehman at City Journal, because the job-losers are mostly the young — those also “most likely to commit crime.” One study found the $15 wage Democrats hope to pass could cost $2.5 billion in crime damage, “a bill that would be borne disproportionately by the very people” the wage hike is meant to help. With unemployment well above pre-COVID levels and small businesses struggling, “now is perhaps the worst time” for a steep wage hike. That it could lead to millions of dollars in crime costs and create thousands of new criminals is “all the more reason to oppose it.”

Libertarian: Smith College’s Fake Woke Tales

In 2018, a black Smith College student named Oumou Kanoute claimed she was “harassed by a college janitor and police officer” who accused her of trespassing inside a dorm lounge, recalls Reason’s Robby Soave. Smith apologized to Kanoute, and the employees involved “were publicly branded racists.” Yet new details show Kanoute was indeed trespassing, and “contrary to Kanoute’s claim that she thought her life might be in danger, the officer was quite unarmed.” Even so, “the revelation that the entire narrative surrounding the incident was a lie has not changed matters one bit at Smith,” which didn’t apologize to the employees. Alas, the “tactic” of “weaponizing false claims of racism” is spreading. “As Andrew Sullivan once observed, ‘We all live on campus now.’”

Media watch: How To Deal With Hostile Journos

Elon Musk knows how to respond to reporters in the “hostile and dishonest” corporate media world, cheers The Federalist’s Christopher Bedford. Asked for comment by a Washington Post reporter about investors worried he’s “stretched too thin — a story the reporter almost certainly finished writing before bothering to reach out — Musk replied, ‘Give my regards to your puppet master,’ ” a reference to WaPo owner Jeff Bezos. Musk’s retort was appropriate for dealing with a hostile reporter, especially in a profession where it’s now “noble” to “take photographs of children to get just one more scoop on the already known story of Sen. Ted Cruz going to Mexico” — while a story about Gov. Cuomo “killing thousands of your parents in your own state is ignored.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

Published

on

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

When President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court last fall, hysterical Democrats declared millions of Americans would lose health coverage with her vote against ObamaCare — and immediately started talking about packing a court they called hopelessly divided.

Two big Supreme Court decisions last week proved reality turned out to be nothing like Dems’ fever dreams.

In a 7-2 decision in California v. Texas, the high court rejected a Republican bid to invalidate ObamaCare — and Barrett was not one of the two dissenters. It ruled that Texas and 17 other GOP-led states didn’t have standing to challenge the law’s individual mandate. The Trump administration had taken their side, while 20 Democratic-run states including New York and California, along with the Dem-controlled House of Representatives, took the other. Only Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented to the majority opinion the liberal Stephen Breyer authored.

How could this be? Last year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.” In her opening statement at Barrett’s confirmation hearing, then-Sen. Kamala Harris held up a picture of an 11-year-old constituent and accused Republicans of trying “to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take away health care from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.”

Democrats boycotted the final committee vote, filling their seats instead with posters of ObamaCare recipients, implying a vote for Barrett would put those lives at risk.

During the whole childish circus, they insisted Trump had picked Barrett and sped up her confirmation just so she’d be seated in time to hear arguments in the case and dismantle the law. They didn’t bother to look at her record and examine her judicial philosophy — they assumed this well-qualified woman would be the president’s puppet.

In the second important decision, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the court ruled unanimously that the city violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause by suspending Catholic Social Services’ contract because the group wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents.

Yes, all nine justices ruled in favor of religious freedom — putting paid to Democratic complaints the court is out of balance with too many conservatives. It’s far from the only unanimous decision already this term, either. Every justice signed on to decisions written by Gorsuch, Breyer, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, with two of the cases involving immigration issues.

That people of varying political stripes can agree on the law shouldn’t come as a surprise. Supreme Court justices take their jobs seriously — which is more than you can say for Democrats charged with helping choose them.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

Published

on

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

The media have spent the Joe Biden presidency thus far pressuring moderate Democrats to join the left’s efforts to destroy the filibuster.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Big Labor’s gift to itself and other commentary

Published

on

Big Labor's gift to itself and other commentary

Libertarian: Unions’ Gift to Themselves

Big Labor spent millions getting President Biden elected — and now it’s seeking to enact a law “directing federal power and resources to boost flagging” union rolls, laments Reason’s Eric Boehm. The so-called PRO Act “is a grab bag of Big-Labor agenda items that would extend some of California’s awful independent contractor regulations nationwide” and “abolish so-called right-to-work laws in the 27 states that have passed them.” Biden and the unions insist this is about empowering workers, “but if workers were as eager to join unions as [they] seem to think, they wouldn’t need a powerful federal bureaucracy to encourage that outcome.”

Centrist: United Supremes

The most striking aspect of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on ObamaCare and religious liberty was the “absence of ideological divisions” from a high court that “Democratic leaders have declared hopelessly divided along ideological lines,” observes Jonathan Turley at USA Today. The largely united decisions mark “the final collapse of the false narrative that has been endlessly repeated like a mantra in Congress and the media.” Critics may continue to insist that the court is “dysfunctional, divided and needs to be radically changed,” but the justices aren’t “cooperating,” issuing instead an “inconvenient line of unanimous decisions.” Yet even as the court “seems to be saying a lot in one voice not just about the law, but about its own institution,” the media will undoubtedly continue to denounce it, “because politics demands it.”

Crime beat: A Wake-Up Call in Atlanta

The “mind-numbing randomness, brazenness and, even worse, casualness of violence afflicting Atlanta” has the upscale Buckhead neighborhood “wanting to break away from Atlanta to form its own city” with “its own police force,” writes The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Bill Torpy. Atlanta shootings are up 40 percent this year, but police often see “the same ne’er-do-wells walking the streets the next day,” thanks to a “broken” criminal-justice system. “Buckhead is almost three-quarters white,” yet “in black neighborhoods across the city, victims are widespread, and residents there want police to protect them, too.” But Buckhead can get attention, because its departure would “take away 40 percent of the city’s income.” It should be “one loud wake-up call.”

Culture critic: RIP, Janet Malcolm

At First Things, Helen Andrews assesses the complex legacy of veteran New Yorker magazine scribe Janet Malcolm, who died last week — and whose “cold, precise, unsparing” journalistic style recalled that of the great Russian writer Anton Chekhov. She was born to a psychiatrist father, and “psychoanalysis was a constant presence in Malcolm’s journalism.” The shrink’s couch formed her “eye for the telling detail” and “taught Malcolm a certain bleakness” about the world — and her own profession. Yet her “most famous line” — that “every journalist who is not too stupid or full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible” — helped spread cynicism about reporters. The result, Andrews laments, is that now “every trace of authenticity has been scrubbed from press interviews.” 

Media watch: Suppressing the Truth

“From the lab-leak theory to the Lafayette Square tear-gassing, anti-Trump bias blinded our news media,” declares Wilfred Reilly at Spiked Online. “Except perhaps for the Hunter Biden story,” there was no “potentially major and obviously newsworthy story more intensely suppressed than the lab-leak explanation for COVID’s origins,” but it was just “revealed quite possibly to be correct.” Pols and press called then-President Donald Trump “reckless” for touting hydroxychloroquine, yet “a major study” has found “it increases survival rates for COVID patients by almost 200 percent.” And the claim “Trump had ‘tear-gassed peaceful protesters’ ” to stage a photo-op turned out to be “complete nonsense.” Tellingly, all these facts only came out when Joe Biden became president. This “mainstream-media swiveling” causes “latent social distrust that has no imaginable upside.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Continue Reading

Trending