Summer Reading List

 Now that summer is winding down, the days are shortening, and Labor Day is around the bend, it’s a good time to take stock of where we are.  On one of her recent podcasts, Megyn Kelly mentioned that she thought that Labor Day was a better day for a fresh start than New Year’s Day.   Those of us still stuck in the circadian rhythm of an academic calendar so many years later tend to agree.  Labor Day marks a “back to business” turn of the calendar after barbeques, beaches and long, soft, languorous evenings.

And as we head into fall, it seems that our society as we once knew it is being shaken to the core, values are being inverted, the elite and the criminal class are being protected, encased in protective cocoons, while the rest of us are being bullied, taxed, intimidated, and, in our inner cities, actually assaulted be the criminal class.  Institutions that we thought inviolate—the F.B.I., CDC, and our school systems from K-12 to higher education have been hijacked.   Drag queens and school librarians, and the medical profession sexualize our young children, and in the most egregious government absurdity, millions of illegals cross our border unimpeded and with them loads of deadly fentanyl while New York makes it illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase whipped cream in a canister.

There are days, I am sure, that, like me, you are trying to figure out what, exactly is going on.  These are the books that I recommend to help sort things out and restore your sanity—or at least help you understand that your disorientation is warranted.

The War on the West by Douglas Murray

Douglas Murray has emerged as a leading public intellectual and a worthy heir to the position left void after the death of William F. Buckley.   I find it terribly ironic that the leading intellectuals defending Western democracy and culture are NOT American (see Yoram Hyzony below).   I list Murray’s short, succinct and very readable book as indispensable for an understanding of what we are up against—a serious attack on the West as we have seen since WWII. 

               “In other words, it may be worth recognizing what we are up against when we hear the critics of the West today.  For just as we are not up against justice, but rather up against vengeance, so we are not truly up only against proponents of equality, but also against those who hold a pathological desire for destruction.”

If you only have time to read one, this is it.

The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are Destroying the Idea of America by Victor Davis Hanson

Hanson has been deeply concerned about this revolutionary movement, a Democratic party that resembles the Soviet apparatus more closely than the working man’s Democratic party of a generation or two ago.  He cites the globalist pretensions of the elite, the open and unsymmetric trade with China, open borders and a huge unelected and powerful bureaucracy as some of the forces that are eroding America’s uniqueness. 

               “When American companies outsource their jobs overseas, the American worker usually becomes weaker, not stronger.  When elites enjoy trillions of dollars in joint-venture investments in China, they are less, not more, likely to speak out against authoritarian Chinese anti-Americanism.  When the international community seeks to establish climate change canons for the United States without a constitutionally mandated treaty, the US Congress becomes weaker, not stronger.”

Hanson’s book, along with his podcasts, keep you anchored and aware of how far we have drifted from our unified sense and purpose as a nation, as well as from Constitutional norms.

Conservatism: A Rediscovery by Yoram Hazony

Hazony’s book is among the most thought provoking and enlightening to me.   I’ve struggled to decide whether I am a conservative or a libertarian, a conservative with libertarian leanings, or a libertarian with conservative leanings, and I suspect I am not alone in that regard.  Hazony, an Israeli, helped me clarify those issues and makes a compelling case as to why Jeffersonian liberalism left the door open to this neo-Marxist wave we are experiencing.   Hazony emphasizes the need for the US to return to its Christian roots (with accommodation for Judaism) a premise with which I agree.  The erosion of Christianity has allowed Wokeism to move in as a competing religion.

Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents by Rod Dreher

Dreher’s book is also very short and readable.  The title taken from the quote by Aleksander Solzenitsyn, Dreher warns of the soft totalitarian encroachment by the radical Left.  Like Hazony, Dreher sees a return to Christianity as a pillar against this encroachment:

Communism had a particular ideological vision that required it to destroy traditions, including traditional Christianity.  Nothing outside the communist order could be allowed to exist…. This is why Hannah Arendt described the totalitarian personality as “the completely isolated human being.”  A person duc off from history is a person who is almost powerless against power.

Reading Dreher, you will see why the neo-communists are eager to rewrite history (The 1619 Project) and tear down and deface our statues.

Now, it you’d rather ingest this by way of fiction, there is none other than Lionel Shriver.  She is far and away my favorite living fiction writer.

The Mandibles: A Family 2029-2047 by Lionel Shriver

Published in 2016, before COVID and the coming of the Biden, her novel centers around a US debt crisis, and collapse of the US economy, and the ensuing social collapse and rise of an authoritarian government.  It is frighteningly prescient as some people escape to outlying states (Nevada) to attempt to put themselves beyond the reach of an authoritarian US government.

While I highly recommend The Mandibles, Should We Stay or Should We Go and The Motion of the Body Through Space also are excellent products of Shriver’s sharp, incisive mind.

I know I may have gotten this backwards---putting out the summer reading list at summer’s end, but these selections promise to enlighten you in the coming chilly autumn evenings.

Thuggery

 A few months ago, I posted about the emergence of stealth Islamism in the U.S.

https://commonsense-mark.blogspot.com/2022/05/stealth-islamism.html

The indicia of Islamism seeping into our society are all around us, I observed, although they have arrived under a different rubric.   But the signs are unmistakable--- forced facial coverings (under the rubric of COVID measures), genital mutilation (under the rubric of trans rights), and the conversion of higher education into madrassas (teaching Wokeism rather than critical thinking).   Taken together, these things start to look suspiciously like fundamentalist Islam gaining a foothold in the U.S. by stealth.

But this week, Islamism broke out into the open with the attack on Salman Rushdie, fulfilling the order of a decades old fatwah issued by Ruhollah Khomeini back in 1989.  The knife attack was severe and Rushdie was put on a ventilator for some time.  He suffered nerve damage to his arm and may lose an eye.  Rushdie’s attacker has been arrested and charged with attempted murder and purportedly had loads of pro-Iranian regime posts on social media.   The New York Times and other media outlets, however, are predictably reporting that they “have no idea what his motive might be.”   Twitter, while banishing the likes of Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay and Donald Trump, has permitted Islamists praising Rushdie’s attacker to voice such sentiments on its platform. 

And remember, police foiled an attempt to kidnap and silence Iranian dissident Masih Alinejad just last summer with no reaction from our government.  Likewise, the attack on Rushdie has not elicited an outcry from this terrorist incident from our State Department.

Also, last week, the DOJ and FBI took the unprecedented step of raiding Donald Trump’s residence in Mar-A-Lago.  Merrick Garland, who is intent on putting the bananas in banana republic, claimed that Trump had documents in his possession that belonged in the national archives and some of the materials may have been classified. 

The FBI, which is at a nadir of credibility after looking the other way on Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds, Hunter Biden’s shenanigans, Barack Obama’s removal of presidential materials, the fabricated evidence used to defraud the FISA court and enable the FBI to spy on Donald Trump.   And now, it has taken the radical step of raiding the dwelling of a political opponent. 

This is truly scary stuff for our republic.  It’s the stuff of the KGB, the Gestapo and South American dictatorships.   It’s pretty clear that after all the caterwauling by the Left about the US supporting tinpot dictatorships during the Cold War (and the constant drumbeat that Trump himself had totalitarian inclinations), once they have gained power, they have no inhibitions about actually becoming what they complained about. 

The attack on Rushdie and the unprecedented raid on Trump’s residence may seem like they are unrelated occurrences.   But they are not.  The radical Left and radical Islam are closet allies now.  Remember that the Biden (Obama) administration is frantically working to lift sanctions and resurrect the fatally flawed JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal).  It sees Israel as the oppressor in the Middle East and seeks to empower Iran and diminish Israel’s standing in the Middle East.   Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are revered members of The Squad, and their rank antisemitism has been whitewashed by Pelosi and Biden.   Although there is evidence that Rushdie’s attacker was in communication with the Iranian regime, the Biden administration has been curiously silent about this vicious attack on not only a pre-eminent author but on one of the most sacred principles of the West.

In addition to the eerie fetish for face coverings, the Iranian regime and the Biden regime are both keen on silencing apostates.   Recall that Trump’s powerful signature line at the 2016 RNC was “I am your voice!”  The radical Left decided that could not stand and went to work undermining Trump at every turn, culminating in last week’s unprecedented raid.   Recently, the Biden regime tried to muzzle free speech with its Disinformation Governance Board until it was mocked out of existence.  For now, the Biden administration will have to be content to try to control dissenters’ speech through its proxies in social media, NPR and the New York Times.   The Islamists of Iran are a bit more blunt--- they will do it with knives, guns and bombs when opportunity arises.

The radical Left declared a fatwah against Donald Trump just as Khomeini did against Rushdie. 

The parallels are unmistakable if you are looking for them.

Show Me the Data

 In this era of obfuscation and false narrative, there are two mantras that bear repeating:  Show Me the Data and Follow the Money.  (Unfortunately, “Show Me The Data has already been taken by someone as her Twitter handle or would have grabbed it).  If we were to follow just those two precepts, the nation would be in much, much better shape.   Taken together, they strip out narrative and partisanship, and imply a healthy level of skepticism.  Applied to policy, they will likely us you on the correct path, or at least help avoid costly blunders.

The first incredible blunder with the handling of data in recent years was the second Gulf War.  While information gathered through intelligence sources is often uncertain, the magnitude of this blunder was enormous.  Launched under the justification that Saddam Hussein had violated the cease fire (true) of the first Gulf War and was developing WMD (not true), the US launched a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, killed and maimed thousands of US service men and women, cost trillions of dollars and ended up empowering Iran at the end of the day.  All with scanty evidence that the assertion was, in fact, true.

Not to be outdone, our CDC, NIH and Anthony Fauci likewise reacted horrifically and imposed enormous costs on our country by not only misinterpreting data, but putting out false and sketchy data itself.  Even worse than was the case in the first Gulf War, social media served to either suppress or amplify evidence as it chose.  Individuals that spoke to the credibility of the Lab Leak Theory of COVID’s origin were banned from social media as were people that espoused the use of Ivermectin as a treatment.   We never really got an accurate figure of COVID deaths because the CDC obfuscated deaths “with COVID” and “from COVID.”   The CDC relentlessly pushed vaccines, even with little evidence of their efficacy and with no data on their long term adverse effects.  Government forced members of our armed forces out of service and forced children to be masked in school, doing terrible damage to our national security and the intellectual and emotional development of our children—with no benefit.  Now, life insurance companies are reporting a 40% increase in death rates among 18-49 year olds.  We are seeing evidence of increases in myocardia, and other maladies.  One of the nation’s top female athletes, Nelly Korda was recently hospitalized with blood clots.   Joe Biden, among others, contracted COVID despite being vaccinated a double boosted, yet the CDC had blathered last year that this was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”   As with the second Gulf War, the government manipulated the data to create a narrative that was extremely costly for the US, and unnecessarily so.

Then there was the narrative that the police were targeting blacks unjustly and shooting innocent, unarmed blacks systemically.    The trouble is that the data never matched the narrative.  Tucker Carlson did his homework and went through each incident of a police shooting of an unarmed black in the previous year and found only 2 situations where the shooting was unjustified and those were prosecuted.   When Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer in a careful study likewise found no disparity in the treatment of blacks by the Houston police department, however, he was “canceled” by Harvard with a trumped us sexual harassment charge (I will write more on that in a subsequent post).  This narrative is being used to justify “defunding the police” with catastrophic consequences for our cities.

Likewise, the Department of Justice claims that white supremacism remains a top security threat (especially at school board meetings).  Yet we see no actual evidence to support that assertion.

We have plenty of  smart and sophisticated people and analytical techniques available to use data to come to sound policy decisions for our society.  It’s time we start using them.

The Terrible Threes

 Tyrants of all kinds LOVE slogans—the more vacuous and innocuous sounding the better.  They are meant to be devoid of real meaning, or to camouflage precisely where they are taking society.  Most often, the actual results are the exact opposite of the slogan’s purported aspirations.  The Bolshevik’s “Peace, Land, and Bread,” gave them war, an invasion by the Germans and mass starvation.  Likewise, Mao’s “Serve the People” and the “Great Leap Forward,” resulted in 36-45 million deaths.  And we all know where the infamous “Abreit Macht Frei” went.

And here we are once again, subject to an onslaught of slogans.  But this time, it’s from within.   The slogans and messaging are back, in an effort to reshape society.  But this time, they are being broadcast in the West, in an effort to reshape free societies into something different.  Once again, as in the case of the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, and the Nazis, they are the propaganda tools of the central planners.  It’s scary stuff, and scarier still that today’s central planners have a propaganda reach to be able to manipulate the population through social media that the Bolsheviks, Maoists and Nazis could only dream of. 

Build Back Better
The alliteration rolled off the tongues of all the Western leaders from Macron to Biden to Merkel to Boris Johnson.  It seemed to gain traction after the horrendous policy decisions to shut down Western societies in response to the COVID pandemic.  And it sounded great, especially in America, where we thrive on innovation, fresh starts and renewal.   But it never answered fundamental questions.  Who was going to do the building?  What, exactly was being built?  With what money?  A high speed rail like the one in California that cost millions with not an inch of track being laid?   Millions of electric cars with no infrastructure to service them?  

Social Emotional Learning
SEL is marketed as a way of developing emotional control, empathy and facilitates students “feeling and showing empathy toward others” and establishing “equitable learning environments.” It can help “address various forms of inequity.”  All of this sounds nice.  Who isn’t FOR empathy?  But the more you read about SEL, the more you realize that this is simply the State elbowing its way into the space that should be occupied by family and church.  It is state education sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.  It's the role of parents and pastors to form identities and teach empathy and cooperation.  SEL is simply an academic sounding slogan to displace family and faith and substitute the state.

Environmental, Social and Governance
Like SEL, ESG is being applied to corporations and states.  And like SEL, it’s hard to argue against.  Who doesn’t want companies and sovereignties to be environmentally aware?  Who can be against the health and safety of employees?  ESG is deliberately formulated to be a direct counter to Milton Friedman’s theory that a firm exists primarily to satisfy its shareholders.   Like SEL, ESG exists to promote an agenda.  It assigns a score to companies and sovereignties WITHOUT REGARD TO FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.   It ignores an essential truism of economics and of life itself—that all problems involve tradeoffs, constraints and boundaries.  Further, all of the issues that ESG purportedly is set up to address are amply dealt with in federal law, various state laws, and administrative bodies.  It is highly duplicative of the EPA, Department of Labor, EEOC, the SEC and various state corporate laws.

Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness
CRT and DEI and their corrosive effects on higher education, corporate life and society in general have been amply written about by writers like James Lindsey, Gad Saad, Jordan Peterson and others, and I will not attempt to regurgitate what they have said here.   All I will say on these topics is that, like ESG, they ignore actual performance as a measure of success. And both ignore the social good of social cohesiveness as an end in itself.   CRT and DEI have led to the diminution of standards across academia and corporate life, and in a host of other environments.  About the only place they have not corrupted is competitive chess.   Rankings are formulaic and color blind.  There are no diversity quota for grandmasters.  You either make the cut or you do not.  Period.

Black Lives Matter
Black Lives Matter was probably the most clever of the three word slogans.  It’s impossible to argue the converse.  But it is an inherently racist statement.  Black lives do, indeed, matter.  But so do white lives, Asian lives, Indian and Pakistani lives, Hispanic lives, and Indigenous lives.   Further, Black Lives Matter the organization was conflated with the notion that black lives matter.  And as we saw, Black Lives Matter was a scam, a shakedown of monumental proportions, that leveraged the death of George Floyd to enrich its founders like Patrice Cullors.  The organization collected millions, but bestowed nothing on HBCUs, or health organizations or anything else for that matter that actually enriched Black lives.

The three word slogans have become endemic in our society.  They are vacuous, antithetical to a democratic, capitalist society, and are leading to the degradation of standards, of innovation, and of excellence.  They are all deliberately designed to be difficult to argue against.  They are constructed in threes because that is easy to remember and impound But each is also designed to convey power to the State and to the central planners and will end with the Sovietization of America.

Terror on the 4th

 The first notices started popping up on Twitter mid-morning as I gathered my clubs to go to the driving range in Highland Park—active shooter at a 4^th of July parade.   It stopped me in my tracks and I ended up spending the day much like I did 21 years ago on 9/11, watching the news unfold, fielding phone calls from friends and exchanging messages with others.    As the perpetrator remained at large until early evening, much of the North Shore was shut down as a precaution. 

In certain respects, this was worse than 9/11 as I watched events unfold.  It was eerie to see news cameras pan around and all the sights were familiar.  I had just passed through the area the day before. And just like 9/11, I was glued to the news most of the day as 4^th of July activities got quashed.

By the end of the evening, three politicians—J.B. Pritzker, Tammy Duckworth and Lori Lightfoot all lined up to score political points, more or less reading the same talking points about “assault weapons,” even though Highland Park has the most comprehensive firearms restriction regimen in the country.  The ever Woke and politically compliant Cardinal Cupich dutifully parroted the message, which led me to consider whether we would have fewer of these instances if Cupich didn’t drive young people away from the Catholic faith.  This disgusting parade was followed by the eloquent Vice President’s appearance the next day, soothing the wounds of the mourning citizens of Highland Park to “seriously take this seriously.”   Pritzker’s and Lightfoot’s words of condolence drew ire from social media as their policies have created an environment in which 7 dead and 30 wounded in Chicago is just kind of an average weekend now.

But most troubling is a pattern that is emerging of mass killings with unexplained loose ends, and missed opportunities.  Robert Crimo had painted a disturbing image of a person holding a rifle on his mother’s wall.  After threatening to kill his family, police took away his knifes and a sword and yet he was still able to obtain a FOID card (which his father co-sponsored).  Most puzzling is that his father, while under investigation, has been blathering all over the press, explicitly saying he had no regrets for co-signing his FOID application, saying that he had had a conversation the night before the shooting in which they discussed mass shootings, and said his son had “good morals.”  Also, Crimo’s social media posts show him in Antifa-like garb, and there was an Antifa gathering in nearby Wilmette a few days before.

Another unexplained piece of this was a witness who stated that he saw a shooter on the ground in a “military style crouch,” a male with a backpack and that he “looked into his eyes.”  This seems at variance with the fact that Crimo was in a dress shooting from a rooftop.

Like Uvalde, there are lots of unanswered questions.  The Uvalde police inexplicable did not follow modern doctrine and training and permitted the shooter to carry on without interference.  The police actually blocked individuals from attacking the attacker.  We also don’t have answers as to where this kid got $5,000 or so to purchase two top of the line AR-15s, ammo and a vest.

The Uvalde, Highland Park and the Waukesha attacks purposefully focused on families and children.  In all three cases, the perpetrators had a pretty clear trail of disturbing behavior.

The question is how are these attacks linked.  Were they lone wolves?  Is this a manifestation of COVID lockdown madness? Are they part of some sort of network, even a loose one like Islamic terrorists that draw inspiration from others?   Or is something more sinister going on?  The unanswered questions leave open the latter possibilities.

 

My Reaction to the Reactions

 Almost two months after the leak of the draft of Alito’s majority opinion, the Dobbs decision was finally released on Friday, overturning Roe v. Wade.  I have not yet read the entire opinion, although the hefty opinion and the dissents sit at the edge of my desk in my “to be read” pile.

The final decision has triggered the expected response in the usual places.   Nancy Pelosi was so angered that she was almost incoherent and her earring fell off at the end of her statement.  Barack Obama, with no small irony, commented “[the decision] relegated the most intensely  personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues.”  *cough**cough*  The ever eloquent and inspirational Kamala Harris reacted by stating “we are guided by what we see that can be, unburdened by what has been.”  Ms. Harris apparently has been unburdened by any serious Constitutional scholarship.  The Vatican did release a statement, but also took the opportunity to say that being “pro-life means defending life against the threat of firearms.”  The Woke Pope himself, who tweets daily about climate change and immigration, has been pretty quiet about an issue that has been central to Catholic beliefs for a long, long time.  And from the radical Left, the reaction has been an entirely predictable temper tantrum.  Lost in all this is that a Missourian just needs to fill up the car and drive across the  border to Illinois where she will be welcomed into the Abortion Mecca of the Midwest with open arms by our ever health focused governor J.B. Pritzker (Body Mass Index approaching infinity), a drive that would be less expensive had Joe Biden not won the presidency.    And Woke corporations like JP Morgan Chase are tripping over themselves to underwrite abortion transportation costs in the name of women’s rights  (“If you could be back at your desk taking calls by lunchtime, that would be great, Nancy.   We’re here for you.”).   None of that messy, inconvenient maternity leave and post-birth time on the phone coordinating with nannies, doctor’s appointments,  parent-teacher conferences and all that for the progressive, beneficent Mr. Dimon.  We have shareholders to please.  The cost/benefit is pretty clear.  A couple thousand bucks of travel expenses is a real bargain to limit the lost productivity that children cause.

For me, the most curious reactions came on LinkedIn, and as a result, I have begun the practice of “de-networking,” that is, trimming contacts from LinkedIn that use the platform as a place to make political statements.   In my view, LinkedIn is a platform to make and maintain professional connections and to view someone’s background, and is a job search engine.  LinkedIn is usually the first stop for most headhunters and employers.

I have begun to actually trim contacts.  It began with people putting pronouns in their bios.  I figured that if I don’t know you well enough to know what sex you are,  it is highly unlikely that I will know you well enough to do any business with.   Pronouns in the bio earn an automatic deletion from my contact list.

Similarly, I deleted a number of contacts after the 2020 election that posted gushing comments about Kamala Harris breaking the glass ceiling.  Harris, who didn’t earn a single delegate in the Democratic primaries, has broken nothing but the nation’s record for vacuous speeches and inappropriate cackling.  Mostly, I deleted these contacts because I apply The Iron Law of Reciprocity.  Not a single person dared post anything positive when Donald Trump won in 2016 on LinkedIn.   Likewise, not a single person had so far shown the courage to applaud Supreme Court's reasoning and adherence to the Constitution.  They wouldn't dare. They would be a social pariah if they did, and would be treated as if they had contracted professional leprosy.  But those that support Roe and express anger at Clarence Thomas are free to paste their views all over LinkedIn.   Most astonishingly, many of the supporters of Roe demonstrate in public their profound ignorance of what the Dobbs ruling actually says, which also says something about how one would analyze professional matters.

But since much of corporate America has incorporated progressive positions in their cultures, it is now permissible to publicly espouse them on public platforms.   For conservatives or libertarians, it is verboten to do so.  They must stay in the closet on political matters—you know, like gays used to have to.  I thought we were past that. I guess not.  We merely switched positions.

So I have been busy trimming contacts like I trim the bushes in the spring.  I refer to it as de-networking. One person actually boasted that he had lost 20 contacts due to his commentary on Dobbs that he posted on LinkedIn.  Delete.  Make that 21.   

But I did do something quite astonishing as a consequence of all this.  I sent a modest campaign contribution to a NY Democrat--  Maud Maron, running for the 10^th District in NY.  Yes, you read that correctly- a NY Democrat. Before you write me off as having completely lost all of my marbles, I reprint her response to Dobbs in its entirety here:

I fully support the legal right of a woman to choose whether to have a child or an abortion, and believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

The Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe v. Wade should not be a cause for panic—especially in New York State where access to abortion is protected by State Law.  The issue now lies with our democratic process; and laws will differ in different states.  We should strive to resolve our differences on this deeply emotional question through reason, not rage.

The federal government should support funding for abortion where it is legal in the states.  Congress should also make sure that states do not interfere with interstate travel to obtain legal abortions.

This is an opportunity for Americans to solve a difficult problem together through debate and compromise.  Let’s take it.

I was so thoroughly impressed by her measured and thoughtful response that I was compelled to send her a contribution and mention her on social media.   While many on the left were firing up flamethrowers and too many on the right were smugly gloating, Ms. Maron’s response was the most eloquent that I have seen expressed so far.  What really caught my attention was what Ms. Maron did NOT do.  She did not assail the Court or its decision.  Her response suggests that she is respectful of the Constitution and the separation of powers.  She advocated a democratic process and debate and compromise.  Plagiarizing a slogan from the Clinton campaign—I’m with her. 

I undoubtedly have some policy differences with Ms. Maud.  And that's OK.  She's a Democrat.  I've generally hewed more closely to Republican positions.  But her enlightened and reasoned response to Dobbs demonstrated the limits of partisanship.  Ironically, out of a highly divisive issue about which people occupy hardened positions, I find myself fully behind a Democrat.  Go figure.  I will be following her closely, and I encourage my readers to support her candidacy.  We need more like her from both parties in Congress.

Black lives matter

 But so does Black behavior.

I detest writing about race, because I do not see people that way.  Skin pigmentation, being an immutable characteristic, is as relevant to me as any other—eye color, hair color, height, etc.  It really means nothing to me and does not govern how I relate to another person at all.  That is the MLK credo.  But in the world in which the preachings of Ibram X. Kendi surpass Martin Luther King, banishing skin color to irrelevancy is not enough.

But there is a topic that must be talked about, openly and honestly, if we are to regain our place as a civil society.  We can’t duck it or hide from it.  We have to ask questions that many are afraid to ask because of the fear of being labeled or canceled.   But facts are facts. 

The issue is the predominance of Black violence.

The Left for years talked about “disparate impact,” a concept that made its way into our judicial and administrative system of governance.  Disparate impact was the idea that certain practices were not discriminatory on their face but disproportionately adversely affected a certain group—generally African Americans.  This concept was applied in a variety of discrimination cases.

Just as Lionel Shriver’s masterful novel We Need to Talk About Kevin addressed American violence generally and critiqued middle America’s complacency and lifestyle, we now need to talk about black violence.

The facts are stark.  Thirteen percent of the population commits 50% of the violent crime.  The numbers are even worse when you consider that the vast majority of those are committed by black males between the ages of 16 and 40.   And since major urban areas have elected progressive prosecutors, defunded the police and enacted “criminal justice reform,”  murders, assaults, armed robberies and assaults have spiked across the country.  And that’s just the crime that gets reported.  Other incidents, like the horrifying terror inflicted upon an older couple by a flash mob while they were trapped in their vehicle as youths mobbed the car and jumped on it, threatening and terrorizing them, don’t even get reported.  Twitter has been unable to block all of the brawls in airports, fast food restaurants, and hotel lobbies, a vastly disproportionate number involve African Americans.   Chicago had 1800 carjackings in 2021, and so far 2022 is on pace to eclipse that total.  Almost all of them have been committed by African Americans.   Whites, Hispanics, Indians, and Asians together make up a fraction of those crimes.

Just as we talked about disparate impact, we need to put disparate black violence on the table and talk about it.  It is turning our magnificent cities into dystopian hell holes, which are being increasingly being abandoned by law abiding citizens and businesses.  It is true that 80% or so of the violence by blacks is directed at other blacks.  But this is meaningless.  It is destroying the black community and prompting me to ask why, as a white person, do I seem to care more about the slaughter of black children in Chicago than Chicago’s black political leadership?

We can’t begin to make progress in solving the problem until we can ask the question of why?

Most whites are prohibited from asking the question for fear of being labeled racist.   Few blacks will address it honestly.  Shemeeka Michelle has addressed black violence.   So has Glenn Loury and John McWhorter (this recent podcast addresses it squarely and I highly recommend it. 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0vPhfM372Ju2GfdtCATFir

But they are the minority of a minority. Economist Steven Leavitt attempted to explain Black violent crime by citing Roe v. Wade.  He came under attack by both the left and right for asserting that the violent crime rate was a demographic issue and had decreased because fewer unwanted children were being born as a result of Roe.  But we have had a decrease in birth rates and the Roe hypothesis certainly looks shakier as crime rates spike.

I would argue that Black violence is actually worse that Loury portrays it.  Black violence is not exclusively confined to lower class black young men.  We have seen Black women engaged in horrible melees and as participants in flash mobs.

The violence is not limited to lower classes, either.  Police were summoned to the home of Cook County DA Kim Foxx's home after she apparently had a physical confrontation with her husband.  Two of Michael Jordan's sons--Jeffrey and Marcus--were arrested after physical confrontations with law enforcement.  These two young men grew up in opulence and in one of Chicago's wealthiest suburbs.  And then there was the very public battery by Will Smith of Chris Rock.   Resorting to physical violence is not limited to the "marginalized" in Black society; violence seems to reach the very to echelons of the Black community.

It is not racist to ask what is going on.  If we care about people, if we care about the progress of African Americans, particularly African American children, we cannot be afraid to ask why.  Indeed, responsible citizenry demands that we do.

A subset of the problem of Black violence is the feral Black youth.  The murderers of Tessa Majors, and the UberEats driver in DC were in their teens as are a predominant number of carjackers in Chicago.  What is to become of these youthful criminals?  What are we to do with them?  The murderer of Tessa Majors received a sentence of 18 months of "detention."  What will likely become of him?  Can he be reformed and rehabilitated?  How did he get to be a soulless murderer in the first place?  Judge Tim Evans, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook  County in Illinois has stated that those children under 16 cannot tell right from wrong.  Is that really the case?

The radical Left has attempted to frame this up as a white supremacist problem. The statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests that the Black violence problem vastly overwhelms any contribution of purported white supremacy.  And it is Black society itself that is bearing much of the suffering from this pathology.

Platitudinous answers like, "It's a cultural issue," or "It's a legacy of slavery," or, worse, "It's genetic" are all unsatisfactory answers.  Most insulting was Mark Milley's absurd comment about needing to understand "white rage."  It's not the white population that is disproportionately exhibiting rage.

Most of us have been socialized to have violence inhibitors kick in.  In our day to day lives, most people find a way to supress their violent urges.  Most of us figure out how to block the urge to smack a co-worker in a meeting even when they are exasperating to us.  We do not slap our spouses when they enrage us.  We certainly do not physically resist law enforcement during a traffic stop, even when we feel we have been unjustly singled out.   Why do Black Americans, proportionately, do not seem to possess such disinhibitors?  Again, this says nothing about any individual, but only making observations of Blacks as a group.  We need to come to a fuller understanding of why this appears to be so, and discuss it in a frank and productive manner without  being labeled or canceled.

We must begin by not whitewashing the problem and certainly not lionizing criminals.  George Floyd's death was harmful to our society, but not in the way the MSM thinks.  Floyd died under the knee of Derek Chauvin, true.  But the toxicology report conclusively showed that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill him-- and on its face a fact sufficient to nullify Chauvin's conviction base on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  Yet the MSM and certain segments of the public continue to view him as a religious martyr.  Statues were erected to him.  Murals have been painted in his honor.  Nancy Pelosi thanked Floyd for "sacrificing your life for justice."  A new biography of Floyed has been released and the New York Times Book Review gushed with praise for Floyd, describing him as "shy, contemplative and good natured" and blamed "growing up Black and poor" and "structural racism" for his outcome.  According to the author and reviewer, Floyd had no agency over his own life.  Nowhere did the review even mention Floyd's conviction and imprisonment for beating and threatening a pregnant woman with a gun.  And after his actions were so bad that he was put away for five years, Floyd apparently didn't learn anything from it.  George Floyd was no Rosa Parks.

It's not racist to put this issue on the table for discussion.  We need answers.  The peace and prosperity of our society and the progress and reduction of the income and wealth gap between black and white America depends on some answers.