■ Obvious good advice from Proverbs
19:27. Maybe a little too obvious, edging over into
27 Stop listening to instruction, my son,
and you will stray from the words of knowledge.
■ At Reason, A. Barton Hinkle notes that, to his Progressive
in Politics Apparently Isn't So Bad When Democrats Win.
Political experts have cited many reasons for Democrat Ralph
Northam's huge win in Tuesday's elections. Credit has gone to the
state's changing demographics. And to high voter turnout.
And to loathing for Donald Trump, which helped drive turnout. Some
on the right blamed Republican Ed Gillespie not being Trumpian
One explanation was conspicuous by its absence, however:
In the closing weeks of the campaign, Northam enjoyed a 2-1 advantage in
financing: He went into October with $5.7 million in his pocket,
compared to Gillespie's $2.5 million. By the time the polls closed,
Northam had spent $32 million to Gillespie's $23 million.
ABH notes further a certain disparity in the way things are covered:
The difference in scrutiny is revealing, in the same way that frequent references to "the gun lobby"—but never "the abortion lobby"—are revealing. When conservative or libertarian groups support a Republican candidate, it's proof that the candidate is "in the pocket of" powerful and nefarious interests who have "bought and paid for" her support. When liberal or progressive groups contribute to a Democratic candidate, it's proof that the candidate's principled stand on important issues has earned the support of ordinary people who share her values.
Hinkle's linkles are interesting, restricting searches for those
phrases to the NYT: as I type, "gun lobby" gets 1520 hits,
"abortion lobby" gets 57.
Ironically (or is it), a similar hit count disparity is shown if the
search is restricted to reason.com.
The hit counts are nearly equal at nationalreview.com.
■ What does the Biden 'Sunday Night Football' interview show? At the
Daily Signal, John York has a suggestion:
‘Sunday Night Football’ Interview Shows Campaign Finance ‘Reform’
Would Benefit Media, Not All People.
Many liberals point to the rising price tag of American political
campaigns to support calls for campaign finance reform.
According to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and many others, the
billions of dollars donated to political campaigns by individuals
and corporations amount to “legalized
bribery” on the part of big corporations and the
But constraining private citizens’ ability to fund political speech would not empower the average citizen. Instead, one of the major beneficiaries would be nationwide media conglomerates and their wealthy owners.
Neither York nor I want to tell NBC who they are and are not allowed
to interview during a football telecast. But Progressive calls for
"campaign finance reform" are largely about cementing in Progressive
advantages in getting their mugs on-air in "friendly" situations.
■ @kevinNR has a
suggestion you've seen here before: End
the Visa Lottery.
The diversity lottery is emblematic of our wrongheaded thinking
about immigration. Here’s the way it works: Countries that have sent
lots of immigrants to the United States (more than 50,000 over five
years) are put on an exclusion list, and the rest of the world gets
to enter an immigration sweepstakes in which first prize is an
immigration visa for the United States. Those are much coveted,
because there aren’t a lot of other ways for people who do not
already have family in the United States or highly prized work
skills to immigrate. So, Canadians are out of luck, along with
Mexicans, Colombians, Vietnamese, Indians, and those pesky
Englishmen who have for generations been packed into the squalid
Anglo-Saxon ghettos that mar so many of our otherwise fair cities
with their tea and cricket and ironic diffidence.
Not to mention the stiff upper lips.
But Kevin's right: the "diversity lottery" serves no compelling
American interest. Junk it. Yesterday, if possible.
■ At the College Fix, Coy Westerbrook got Knox College
administration and faculty to open up about their cancellation of
"The Good Person of Szechwan", a play centering around a Chinese
hooker sex worker:
defend decision to cancel play after students criticized it as
Mainly notable for the quotes, for example
from Elizabeth Carlin Metz, chair of Knox’s theater department:
“I believe that academia needs continually to be vigilant about the shifting nuances in addressing sensitive texts,” Carlin Metz told The Fix. “I think we must put them in our syllabi and on our stages so that we can interrogate our assumptions and examine our past in order to understand [our] present…We need to acknowledge privilege in all sectors and the inherent bias that ensues. And we all need to listen.”
Prof Carlin Metz, master of academic bafflegab. From the "General
Interests" of her
"As a stage director in both the profession and academia, I am most
stimulated and delighted by theatre that is visceral, provocative,
and challenging. While I am interested in all forms of theatre, I am
most drawn to contemporary non-traditional theatre that explores the
human condition. I seek to integrate physical theatre techniques
with more traditional Western theatre practices so as to discover
new levels of expressiveness and meaning in theatre of all styles
and genres and, thus, in the world."
Provocative, but not as provocative as "The Good Person of
■ LFOD alert: Our state's local cell of Commie Radio takes a look at You
Asked, We Answered: Why Doesn't Everyone Wear Seat Belts in
N.H.?. The NHPR comrade queried Russ Rader at the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.
I explained to Russ that we have, as a state, collectively
considered passing seat belt laws in the past and decided we
preferred that the government just stay out of it. I asked him what
he thought of that line of reasoning.
“Well, it works,” he said, referring to seat belt legislation.
Studies have concluded that seat belt legislation measurably increases
seat belt usage.
“The motto ‘Live Free or Die’ may be ingrained in the culture of the
state, but people are dying needlessly because of lack of belt use,"
"We could be saving a lot of lives if people were required to buckle up.”
What Russ doesn't mention is that we could be saving a lot
more lives with all sorts of other laws. Alcohol prohibition,
this time with real teeth! Mandatory helmets for passengers and
drivers! 25 MPH speed limits everywhere!
Where's the line? Commie Radio didn't ask that.
■ Geoffrey Surtees of the American Center for Law and Justice takes
note of movement on the compelled-speech front: Major
First Amendment Update: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Pro-Life Free
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court took a critical first step in protecting the First Amendment right of pro-life pregnancy care centers to speak to their clients free from government coercion.
At issue is a California law requiring those centers to notify all
comers of possible "free or low-cost access" to, among other things, baby-killing services.
And there's an LFOD connection:
The First Amendment not only prohibits the government from telling
people what they cannot say, it prohibits the government
from telling people what they must say. Based on that
principle of law, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of a New
Hampshire citizen to black out the state’s motto (“Live Free or
Die”) on his car’s license plate. It has upheld the right of students and teachers not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if doing so would violate their conscience. It has struck down a state law requiring newspapers to print a reply critical of a paper’s editorials.
So, good luck with that. Kennedy's still on the SC, so I'm not
optimistic about their chances.