Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2018

Repeal the Logan Act

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:00 pm

As most people following politics know, there’s an obscure law called the Logan Act which makes it a crime for unauthorized people to conduct foreign policy with certain governments under specified circumstances. If someone like Michael Flynn negotiates foreign policy with a Russian ambassador, or Ted Kennedy asks the Rooskies to intervene in a U.S. presidential election, or John Kerry sends a message to Mahmoud Abbas not to yield to Trump’s foreign policy demands . . . well, then in theory, those people should be prosecuted if they were not a) government officials when they took those actions, or b) otherwise authorized to take those actions.

But nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted pursuant to the law, which was passed in 1799. Nobody has even been charged with a violation of the act in over 160 years. As a result, it’s become something of a running joke.

As an example of the way the law is usually discussed, take the piece in Politico titled Confessions of a Russiagate Skeptic, in which a panicky Trump-hater reveals his concern that there might be nothing to the Russia investigation. It’s worth reading for the entertainment value alone (Oh my! what if Trump didn’t do anything!), but for now I am focusing on this passage:

And there are aspects of the Russia scandal, too, that don’t quite add up for me. Take Flynn’s plea bargain. As Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, noted after the deal became public, prosecutors usually prefer to charge participants in a conspiracy with charges related to the underlying crime. But Flynn pleaded guilty only to lying to the FBI, which Bharara surmised suggests might mean Mueller didn’t have much on him. It certainly seems unlikely that any prosecutor would charge Flynn for violating the 219-year-old Logan Act, a constitutionally questionable law that has never been tested in court, for his chats with the Russian ambassador. It’s not even clear if the (stupid) idea of using secure Russian communications gear, as Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly considered doing, would have been a crime.

This is typical of the way the law is discussed online. Any mention of it is generally accompanied by a snicker and a dismissive attitude.

That is not good. If we’re not going to enforce a law, we should repeal it. And given how Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Michael Flynn all skated, it’s obvious we’re not going to enforce it.

So get rid of it already.

And if you think the law makes sense, but needs to be tweaked to meet constitutional standards, then do that. There are those who want the courts to limit its reach — but that’s a job for Congress, not the courts. What Congress should not do is simply leave a law on the books that nobody going to enforce. Because that makes a joke of the rule of law.

The problem is that Congress has no real incentive to repeal bad laws. Glenn Reynolds once proposed a House of Congress devoted to nothing but repealing laws:

If the problem with Congress is that nobody sees repealing laws as job No. 1, why not create a legislative body that can only repeal laws?

The growth of laws and regulation in America has reached the point that pretty much everyone is a felon, whether they know it or not. But nobody in Congress gets much in the way of votes by repealing laws. All the institutional pressures point the other way.

So in a third house of Congress — let’s call it the House of Repeal — the only thing that the elected legislators would have the power to do would be to repeal laws, meaning that for them, all the votes, campaign contributions, media exposure and opportunities for hearings would revolve around paring back the federal behemoth.

It’s a good idea. I bet you could think of some laws to submit for possible repeal.

They could start with the Logan Act. Because it’s a danger to the Rule of Law to have a law on the books that everybody laughs at.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

2/18/2018

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 80: “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:00 am

It is the first Sunday in Lent. The title of today’s cantata is “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott” (A Mighty Fortress Is Our God). The cantata was written for Reformation Day, but that won’t fall on a Sunday until 2021, and I can’t wait that long to give you one of Bach’s best-loved cantatas. And as we will see, the text relates nicely to today’s Gospel reading — and many congregations will be singing the Martin Luther hymn today that is the basis of the cantata. Listen to Bach’s cantata and rejoice:

The most recognizable iteration of the melody, from Luther’s hymn, is contained in the final chorale at 23:20 of the recording.

Luther is said to have uttered these words: “Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world.” These words ring true to me, especially because musical works — Bach’s cantatas in particular — have played a primary role in bringing me back to the church.

Today’s Gospel reading is Mark 1:9-15, and describes Jesus’s 40 days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan:

The Baptism and Testing of Jesus

At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Jesus Announces the Good News

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Last week’s Gospel reading concerned the Transfiguration of our Lord — another milestone of Jesus’s life, and another one where a voice came from the heavens, proclaiming that Jesus is God’s son. We have already heard verses 9-11 this church year, on the first Sunday after the Epiphany, but now we carry on the story to Jesus’s temptation and the proclamation of good news.

The text of today’s cantata is available here. The theme of fighting Satan is also apparent in this cantata, making this an appropriate cantata for the occasion. The opening chorus speaks of God being a fortress against “the old, evil enemy … and his horrid armaments”:

Our God is a secure fortress,
a good shield and weapon;
He helps us willingly out of all troubles,
that now have encountered us.
The old, evil enemy
is earnestly bent on it,
great strength and much deceit
are his horrid armaments,
there is nothing like him on earth.

A recitative proclaims God’s victory in “the war against Satan’s host”:

Only consider, child of God, that such great love,
which Jesus Himself
with His blood signed over to you,
through which He,
in the war against Satan’s host and against the world and sin,
has won you!
Do not make a place in your soul
for Satan and depravity!

I have given up both alcohol and chips for Lent — a double sacrifice that I’m sure we can all agree is very close to spending 40 days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan! OK, maybe not quite — but close, right?

I’ve been criticized for bringing you only Bach in these Sunday posts. I’m going to continue to present Bach cantatas, but I’ll give you some other music when it relates — and today is a perfect example, because one of my favorite composers, Felix Mendelssohn, used the same Martin Luther hymn as the basis of the fourth movement of his “Reformation Symphony”:

The entire symphony is available there for you to listen to, but I have set it up to begin at the fourth movement, so you can hear the stirring melody used in Bach’s cantata. It begins in the flute, spreads to other woodwinds, and is gradually taken up by the full orchestra. At 27:42, there is a stirring rendition of the theme to close the symphony. The symphony was labeled Mendelssohn’s Fifth, but was actually his second, and is not performed nearly often enough.

If you’re interested in hearing a beautiful performance of Luther’s hymn sung in English, there’s this performance by the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge.

UPDATE: A commmenter explains the meaning of the Arabic letter in the video, as to which I was previously ignorant:

The Arabic letter is a “nun,” for “Nazarene.” ISIS militants spray-painted it on the homes of Christians to mark them for terror and then seizure of their property. Some Westerners have adopted it as a symbol of solidarity.

Gorgeous.

Happy listening!

UPDATE x2: If you don’t have time to listen to anything else, make sure to listen to the duet at 19:12. It is one of the more beautiful passages Bach wrote — and that’s saying something.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

2/17/2018

Thanks to Everyone Who Contributed for Leviticus’s Baby Girl

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:12 am

On February 13, I posted that our longtime commenter Leviticus was lucky enough to experienced the birth of a daughter: Shirley Beatrix M.

Commenter Simon Jester had suggested passing around the hat for Shirley, and other commenters told me they would like that. So I did.

I told people that they could be anonymous in their gift-giving if they wanted, or publicly anonymous but known to Leviticus, or not anonymous at all. I’m publishing the amounts in this post, partially for transparency (so that everyone will know that their gifts got to Leviticus), and partially so that Leviticus can have the chance to publicly thank folks.

Patterico: $100
Anonymous: $100
Simon Jester: $100
felipe: $100
nk: $50
aphrael: $50
Anonymous: $25
Jeff Lebowski: $20

The totals below add up to $545.00, which I sent to Leviticus today. Thanks to those who contributed. If you think I overlooked your donation, leave a comment or email me, but I’m pretty confident I didn’t.

The window is not closed; if you still want to contribute I will update this post. PayPal the money to patterico AT gmail DOT com.

I have asked Leviticus for pictures.

UPDATE: Colonel Haiku: $75. Thank you. That brings us to $620.00.

UPDATE x2: kishnevi: $36. Thank you. That brings us to $656.00.

UPDATE x3: Anonymous: $25. Thank you. That brings us to $681.00. All has been sent to Leviticus.

Happy Blogiversary to Me

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:00 am

Today is a milestone of sorts. This blog began 15 years ago today, on February 17, 2003. I was 34 years old. I turn 50 later this year. My daughter had recently had her third birthday, and my son was four months old. Now my daughter is an adult. She can vote. My son is 15 and almost old enough to drive.

A lot of you have been around an awfully long time. I appreciate every reader and commenter (OK, most of them) — especially the longtime readers.

Thanks for reading, and spread the word!

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

2/16/2018

Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:45 pm

One of the key figures indicted by a grand jury in the Russia collusion investigation today is Yevgeny Prigozhin, the so-called “chef to Putin.” Who is this fellow, and what connections does he have to the Russian government, if any?

The question is important, because there are no specific allegations in the indictment showing that the Russian government was behind the efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. election decribed in the document. Still, the New York Times explains that “American intelligence agencies have said that Russian President Vladimir V. Putin authorized a multipronged campaign to boost Mr. Trump’s political chances and damage Mrs. Clinton. The indictment points out that the two Russian firms involved in financing it hold various Russian government contracts.” So Prigozhin’s ties to Putin, if any, are a significant component of any analysis of the extent to which Russian interference can be traced to the Kremlin.

It has been known since at least October 2017 that Prigozhin was the financier of a troll factory designed to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, CNN reported last October:

Yevgeny Prigozhin is a Russian oligarch dubbed “chef” to President Vladimir Putin by the Russian press. In 2002, he served caviar and truffles to President George W. Bush during a summit in St. Petersburg. Before that, he renovated a boat that became the city’s most exclusive restaurant.

But his business empire has expanded far beyond the kitchen. US investigators believe it was Prigozhin’s company that financed a Russian “troll factory” that used social media to spread fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign, according to multiple officials briefed on the investigation. One part of the factory had a particularly intriguing name and mission: a “Department of Provocations” dedicated to sowing fake news and social divisions in the West, according to internal company documents obtained by CNN.

Portraits from the past and emerging today show (unsurprisingly) an oligarch with very close ties to Putin. The New York Times today has a piece titled Meet Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Russian Oligarch Indicted in U.S. Election Interference. His ties to Putin as described in the piece are clear and convincing:

Mr. Prigozhin’s critics — including opposition politicians, journalists and activists, the United States Treasury and now Mr. Mueller — say he has emerged as Mr. Putin’s go-to oligarch for that and a variety of sensitive and often-unsavory missions, like recruiting contract soldiers to fight in Ukraine and Syria.

“He is not afraid of dirty tasks,” said Lyubov Sobol of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, an organization established by the prominent opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny to investigate abuse of state contracts and other illicit schemes.

“He can fulfill any task for Putin, ranging from fighting the opposition to sending mercenaries to Syria,” she said. “He serves certain interests in certain spheres, and Putin trusts him.”

Speaking of Navalny, his investigators revealed in May 2017 that the oligarch was earning billions in Kremlin-awarded defense contracts:

Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) published its latest investigative work on Friday, revealing what it says is a cartel of businesses owned by Yevgeny Prigozhin and contracted by the Defense Ministry. Widely known as “Vladimir Putin’s favorite chef,” Prigozhin is a billionaire restaurateur with a history of catering to St. Petersburg’s elites and winning lucrative federal procurement deals. According to ACF, his cartel has won more than 23 billion rubles ($405 million) in defense contracts.

. . . .

ACF says its report concerns just one of Prigozhin’s cartels. According to Navalny, the billionaire operates several similar schemes that have won a total of 180 billion rubles ($3.2 billion) in Russian defense contracts, including multiple no-bid procurement deals.

Putin has definitely scratched Prigozhin’s back — and in setting up his troll factory, Prigozhin appears to have been scratching Putin’s in return. And the mission, according to the indictment, was to push Trump and Bernie Sanders — anybody but Hillary, Ted Cruz, or Rubio:

Indictment Language

So don’t get the idea that these were random Russians who were trying to influence our elections. This was the Russian government, acting through proxies. There is no other logical conclusion.

P.S. By coincidence, I posted this morning about Navalny and his anti-corruption investigations — and how Putin has managed to get Facebook to remove from Instagram some of the evidence supporting those investigations. My post was instantly lost in the welter of news about Mueller’s indictments, but I suggest you take a look at it. In particular, I discussed how Navalny recently provided compelling evidence that another oligarch tied to Paul Manafort, Oleg Deripaska, has met with and bribed Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Prikhodko, a high-ranking Kremlin official with close ties to Putin. It has been known for months, through an email from Manafort, that Manafort had offered to give private briefings to Deripaska about the 2016 election. Navalny’s investigation suggests that those briefings actually used Deripaska as a conduit between Manafort and the Kremlin.

Thus, we may have evidence of a fairly direct link between Trump’s one-time campaign manager and the Kremlin, relating to the 2016 presidential election. This doesn’t mean Trump was tied to the Kremlin himself, of course — but the evidence is increasingly clear that his campaign manager was. I suspect we haven’t heard the last of this.

Vladimir Putin is the biggest oligarch of them all, and he uses other oligarchs (who owe their wealth to their ability to please Putin) to do his bidding. Again: there is no question but that the indictments issued today relate, not just to any random Russia operation to disrupt our election, but one directed by Vladimir Putin himself. If Russia cooperates in handing over these people for prosecution — in particular Prigozhin himself — I will be very surprised.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

Facebook Caves to Putin Censorship — With Bonus COLLUSION Connection!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:30 am

If you don’t have your head up Donald Trump’s rear end, you know that Vladimir Putin, while nominally an elected official, is actually a feared dictator who censors his opposition (and, if he deems it necessary, kills them). What does Putin do when one of his rivals is exposing corruption based on material on a social media service like Facebook’s Instagram? Easy peasy: just tell Instagram to take it down. They’ll comply:

Facebook-owned Instagram has taken down posts related to bribery allegations made by Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny against the country’s deputy prime minister.

Navalny, who is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fiercest rival, posted a video on YouTube earlier this month, that showed metals oligarch Oleg Deripaska allegedly meeting with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Prikhodko on the billionaire’s yacht in Norway.

In the video, Navalny used Instagram posts from a woman called Nastya Rybka, who he claimed to be an escort. Rybka was on the yacht with both Deripaska and Prikhodko. The 25 minute video, which has been watched over 5 million times, claims that bribery took place.

The Wall Street Journal has described Navalny as “the man Vladimir Putin fears most.” While this video is primarily about a corrupt oligarch and a Putin official, and not primarily about Putin himself, Facebook would presumably be willing to take down anything Putin told them to remove, including posts promoting Navalny as a candidate. Anything to keep those sweet sweet rubles coming in.

Social media giants operate in many countries located all over the world, not just in the United States. Governments everywhere have a penchant for trying to censor stuff they don’t like, but here in the U.S., there are systems to thwart that natural government desire. Not so much in places like Russia or China. Google and Facebook are still inaccessible in China, and the price of coming back is bowing to their laws promoting censorship. They may well be willing to pay that price.

The situation creates a tension between the companies’ desire (to the extent it exists at all) to avoid censorship, and their desire to spread their services far and wide, in service of their pocketbook and shareholders — and arguably also in service of access to information. A 2016 article in the Atlantic describes the tension, and the arguments in favor of following local laws:

Google’s move to pull the plug in China is an extreme example of the kinds of decisions Internet companies operating abroad are often up against: If they want to do business, they have to abide by local laws, which can include restrictions on speech. And since the United States has some of the most permissive freedom-of-speech laws in the world, American companies must adapt in order to do business even in parts of the world that are culturally very similar to the U.S.

Western European countries, which receive top marks from Freedom House for online openness, are far less tolerant than the U.S. of hateful speech and images. In Germany, where distributing swastikas is considered hate speech and is illegal, regulators recently investigated a complaint that Facebook was not adequately enforcing national hate-speech law. But it’s inconceivable that Facebook would close down its service in Germany just because the government asks for more censorship than the First Amendment would permit.

In countries with more repressive governments, companies routinely receive requests to take down a much wider range of content that violates local laws. In Russia, for example, speaking ill of public officials can lead to costly libel suits; just across the Black Sea, “insulting Turkishness” is punishable by fines and jail time.

There are a few things that companies can do to push back against censorship-happy governments without losing access to an entire country.

Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, says companies should generally submit to governments’ requests for censorship, if it means they can keep delivering their services. But when they take down content from their platform, Rowland says, the company must be transparent.

“If these companies do whatever they’re capable of doing to publicize that their content is being screened, monitored, and sometimes censored by governments, I think there’s a really good argument that maintaining a social-media presence is inherently a liberalizing force,” Rowland said.

I see Rowland’s point, but I’m skeptical. At a certain point, following local laws becomes immoral. What if local laws required promoting the ideology of ISIS and removing any material that questioned their murderous view of Islam? It’s also worth noting that Rowland’s rationalization for obeying censorship laws has the side benefit of earning the social media companies a lot of cash.

Here, Facebook can point to the fact that a Russian court has issued an injunction against the video: “Deripaska won an injunction against the video after a local court ruled that the video had violated his privacy rights.” But Russian courts dance to Vladimir Putin’s tune, and judges often literally call the Kremlin to ask what their decision will be. Russian courts also participated in the phony criminal cases against Bill Browder and the deceased Sergei Magnitsky, but that doesn’t mean Interpol has to obey the red notices issued pursuant to those farcical proceedings.

BONUS COLLUSION CONNECTION: One interesting side note in the story about Navalny: the YouTube video that is at the center of the firestorm is still online. It’s wildly entertaining, actually — and not just because of the attractive women in skimpy clothing. Navalny tells with flair the story of how they caught Prikhodko (or “Daddy,” as Nastya Rybka calls him). They really got the goods on the guy, and it’s a joy to watch the proof rain down on Prikhodko’s head.

And here’s an angle that will be interesting to those following the Trump-Putin connection, and enraging to those who casually dismiss it. The video ends by reminding us that Deripaska, the oligarch who showered gifts on Prikhodko, was also paying one Paul Manafort for years — and Manafort offered to give Deripaska private briefings about the campaign. Knowing that Manafort was so intimately tied with an oligarch who we now know was bribing a top Putin official is fascinating, even for someone like me who is skeptical of the collusion narrative.

Navalny shows the viewer video of a CNN reporter running around asking Deripaska whether the briefings offered by Manafort were intended for the Kremlin. But, Navalny says, this was unconvincing at the time — because no direct connection had been shown between Deripaska and Putin, other than the usual closeness Putin would necessarily have with any oligarch. But here, Navalny says, we have a much more direct and close link between Deripaska and the Kremlin — and therefore, potentially, between Manafort and Putin … just around the time Donald Trump was accepting the GOP nomination.

Hmmm.

You can watch the video below, with subtitles. Google hasn’t taken it down.

Yet.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

2/15/2018

Amid the Terrible Stories of a School Shooting, a Story of a Hero

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:15 am

The tragedy that occurred yesterday at a high school in Parkland, Florida is hard to process. Someone who would shoot and kill high school students is surely the worst humanity has to offer. I won’t speak the shooter’s name. He doesn’t deserve it. But one man’s name deserves to be spoken and remembered: Aaron Feis, who saved several students as he sacrificed himself:

Football coach Aaron Feis threw himself in front of students as bullets hailed down Wednesday at his alma mater, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

It would become perhaps the final act undertaken by this assistant coach and security guard, who suffered a gunshot wound and later died after he was rushed into surgery, according to the school’s football program and its spokeswoman, Denise Lehtio.

“He died the same way he lived — he put himself second,” Lehtio said. “He was a very kind soul, a very nice man. He died a hero.”

Initially it looked like Feis might make it, but it was not to be:

RIP. May we all keep his example in our minds today.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

2/14/2018

School Shooting In Florida Leaves 17 Dead

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:35 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Horrible:

[P]olice say an expelled student returned to campus and opened fire with an assault rifle, killing 17 and wounding 15 more in the worst school shooting in Florida history.

Just before dismissal at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, thousands of students puzzled at the sound of a fire alarm were launched into a panic when gunfire punctuated the din. As teachers and students fled through hallways and hid under desks, a gunman opened fire, leaving a trail of bodies and stunned confusion in his wake.

The Broward Sheriff’s Office says Nikolas Cruz, 19, killed 17 teenagers and adults, and sent 15 more to the hospital with bullet wounds. Wielding an AR-15 and equipped with multiple magazines, he gunned down a dozen people inside buildings on the school’s sprawling campus, two more on the grounds, and one more on the corner of Pine Island Road as he fled.

Two more died at the hospital. Many underwent surgery at Broward Health hospitals. The Broward Sheriff’s Office says the school, home to about 3,200 students, had been cleared by early evening but they had not identified any of the victims.

Apparently, some students were already wary of Cruz:

Some of the current students told authorities they knew the suspect, Milton reports. Student Brandon Minoff, speaking with CBSN, said he had had classes with Cruz. Minoff described the suspect as a “strange kid.”

Another student told CBS News about the suspect, “The kid was crazy. I had engineering with him a couple years ago and he wasn’t allowed to come to school with a backpack and he would threaten students and break glass and get into fights so he got kicked out of school.”

Prayers for the victims and their families left behind. I cannot imagine what they are going through.

And before the debate about guns heats up, Charles C.W. Cooke thoughtfully responded to a bit of provocation. If only more pundits, journalists and members of the media followed suit:

Untitled4

–Dana

Teacher Who Accused American Troops Of Being “The Lowest Of The Low” Refuses To Step Down From City Council

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:26 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Remember Pico Rivera councilman and high school history teacher Gregory Salcido? He was recently seen on a secretly recorded video being so triggered by a student, who is the son of a combat veteran, wearing a U.S. Marine Corp sweatshirt in his classroom that he berated the student and disparaged the U.S. military as a result:

They’re not like high-level thinkers, they’re not academic people, they’re not intellectual people; they’re the frickin’ lowest of our low… I don’t understand why we let the military guys come over here and recruit you at school. We don’t let pimps come in the school.

Last night, during a City Council meeting where overflow seating was necessary, members passed a resolution asking for Salcido’s resignation from the Council. He declined to step down. Here is his childish, conditional faux-apology, in which he assumes no responsibility for his actions:

If this situation caused a problem, I certainly do apologize for it. If anything I’ve said has hurt somebody it was unintentional.

After seeing the video go viral, after being placed on administrative leave from his classroom, after angry residents congregated both outside and inside of the chamber and at least 50 castigated Salcido for three hours at last night’s council meeting, there can be no doubt in a reasonable man’s mind – and an honest man’s heart – that, not only did he cause a problem, but he also hurt many families who have lost loved ones while serving, and certainly offended the young man who wore a sweatshirt honoring his dad’s service, and in whose footsteps he plans to follow. Clearly, Salcido knowingly disparaged the U.S. military at large as well, thus offending any number of Americans. If Salcido were really this dense, he wouldn’t belong in a classroom. But obviously, he knew exactly how deeply offensive he was being in the classroom, but it didn’t matter to him. In his book, it was mission accomplished. Which makes him unfit for the classroom for an entirely different reason.

Here is his weak-soup offering made last night :

[Salcido] addressed the meeting, saying that since the videos became public, people have threatened to kill him, rape his wife and leave his son an orphan.

“And for what? For what you expressed out here tonight? That said, the first thing that I think is important here is to apologize if it means something though,” he said.

But he also reiterated, more diplomatically, what he said in the classroom: that he thought students with lower academic standing typically end up in the military.

“I don’t think it’s all a revelation to anybody that those who aren’t stellar students usually find the military a better option … that’s not a criticism of anybody. Anything I said had nothing to do with their moral character,” he said.

“I do believe the military is not the best option for my students.… That does not mean I’m anti-military, because I’m not,” he said.

Salcido also claimed that “he was trying to get his students, most of whom are low-income minorities, not to settle for the Army or Navy. “My goal as it relates to my students is to get them to do everything to get to college,” said Salcido, who was shouted down by some angry members of the audience. “I wanted to challenge them to reach their academic potential.””

Salcido also claims to be a pacifist.

A recall petition has been started. He continues to remain on administrative leave from his teaching job.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Judging Trump by the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 am

I often hear these days about how conservative Donald Trump is. I’ll grant you that, so far, he’s been more conservative than I expected. Much of that is the flag-waving I-love-a-parade brand of conservatism that doesn’t excite me much, but a sizable chunk is real conservatism: almost (almost) uniformly excellent judges, reduction of regulation, etc. Notably, so far — as long as he doesn’t get us into a stupid war — his policies have been a clear improvement on what we would have gotten from a Hillary Clinton. Especially if you can ignore his clownish public statements, pathological dishonesty, and wretched character, and focus only on what he does, you can be pretty happy with what we’ve seen. (Of course, what the President says matters — but I’m getting ahead of myself.)

But amid all the praise for the guy, here’s the thing. We’re kinda giving him a pass, even on policy, because we expected so little. It’s like when the kid with the dunce cap gets a question right: it warms your heart and everything, but it doesn’t really make the dunce smart. Put another way: if you have two kids, and one gets straight A’s, and the other fails all of their classes and does drugs, you’re disappointed when the first kid gets a B, while that same B would make you wildly ecstatic with the performance of the other kid. When the latter sort of expectation becomes ingrained, it can lead you to what George W. Bush memorably called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

So I’d like to take a moment to point out two ways in which Donald Trump is objectively horrible: 1) the debt, and 2) his support for dictators.

THE DEBT

I’m not sure it has quite sunk in for everybody just how awful the recent spending bill was. Here’s a synopsis:

Republican lawmakers in 2011 brought the U.S. government to the brink of default, refused to raise the debt ceiling, demanded huge spending cuts, and insisted on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

On Wednesday, they formally broke free from those fiscal principles and announced a plan that would add $500 billion in new spending over two years and suspend the debt ceiling until 2019. This came several months after Republicans passed a tax law that would add more than $1 trillion to the debt over a decade.

With all these changes, the annual gap between spending and revenue in 2019 is projected to eclipse $1.1 trillion, up from $439 billion in 2015. And they are expanding the deficit at an unusual time, when the economy is growing and unemployment is low, a dynamic that often leads to shrinking budget gaps.

Ah, but that’s all Congress’s fault, I hear you say. Not so fast, Sparky! Trump’s proposed budget, released since the are all on him, and they are wretched as well. He just got through proposing that we add $7 trillion to our debt:

The White House budget request would add $984 billion to the federal deficit next year, despite proposed cuts to programs like Medicare and food stamps and despite leaner budgets across federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Trump’s budget statement calls deficits the harbingers of a “desolate” future, but the White House plan would add $7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

Trump could have been a strong voice for fiscal conservatism and threatened to veto anything that added to the deficit. He has been the opposite. Our children will pay the price.

PRAISE FOR DICTATORS

I said up top that if you can ignore what Trump says, and “focus only on what he does, you can be pretty happy with what we’ve seen.” Criticizing his praise for dictators might seem to be at odds with that — but it’s not. First, what the President says always matters. Any president receives outsized news coverage, and Trump gets his share, to put it mildly. But especially in foreign affairs, what he says matters. And Trump loves to praise dictators.

Trump’s man-love for Vladimir Putin is well known, and need not be recounted here. Never mind the murders of journalists — which Trump enables by denying the proof. Never mind the political repression and corruption. We love us that Russian strongman!

But the praise and back-slapping of dictators doesn’t end with Putin. There’s the praise for Duterte’s murderous tactics, from May 2017:

President Trump praised President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines in a phone call last month for doing an “unbelievable job on the drug problem” in the island nation where the government has sanctioned gunning down suspects in the streets.

Xi has made himself a virtual emperor and heads a repressive society that is perhaps the greatest threat to the U.S. He jails journalists and political opponents, and censors information with a vengeance. Trump says of Xi: he is a “very good man.”

Similarly, Trump praises al-Sisi and Erdogan without restraint or caveat. I could go on.

Much of this gets defended as good diplomacy. You want us to get along with other countries, don’t you, Patterico? Well, sure … but the U.S. has always walked a fine line when it comes to oppressive regimes. We want to get along, but we have always tried to keep human rights in mind, and send a signal that we disapprove of abuses. All that is out the window when you are openly applauding the extrajudicial murder of drug dealers.

Yes, we have some good judges and maybe regulations have been eased a bit. But the kid in the dunce cap isn’t a genius. Let’s tone down the praise to bring it in line with reality.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2209 secs.