Politics Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices The Biden-Harris administration’s childcare proposals disregard what Americans actually want. Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images “One of the most urgent things that parents and families need is affordable childcare,” Vice President Kamala Harris declared earlier this year. If this sounds like Obamacare for childcare, you’re not far off. And much like with left-wing healthcare proposals, Harris made a crucial omission. Parents and families don’t just need lower childcare prices—they also need their caregiving choices to be respected. On that front, the Biden-Harris administration has plenty of room for improvement. Just look at how they’ve framed the “caregiving crisis” since the outbreak of Covid-19. Their “Build Back Better” agenda promoted extraordinary subsidies for professional center-based childcare, while offering no support to parents who prefer other arrangements, such as stay-at-home parenting, care provided by a relative (e.g., a grandparent), or care shared among neighbors, church members, etc. They’ve also consistently sought to increase degree requirements, pay, and benefits at childcare centers to draw more workers into that industry. This simultaneously raises costs for families that use center-based care, while pushing a one-size-fits-all “solution” that ignores families’ actual preferences and needs. As the economic policy think tank American Compass reports, most Americans don’t want to rely on childcare centers. They prefer stay-at-home parenting or relative caregiving by close to 10 percentage points. And low-income and working-class Americans—those most in need of the government’s help—are the least favorable to center-based care. Virtually everyone agrees that support for families should increase, but what Democrats miss is that families also have a palpable desire for flexible support.  Why won’t the left respond to this desire? The answer is a mixture of elite bias and bad economics. Of all Americans, only the upper class idealizes dual-income households and childcare centers—but it’s exactly that upper class which has captured the Democrat Party. Liberal policymakers are similarly influenced by their obsession with economic efficiency. When you measure everything by its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product, it’s easy to judge caring for children at home as a step down from spending that time at work.  But conservatives are charting a better course. By increasing federal funding for childcare, we can show that we put families first. And by reforming that funding to give families more options, we can show working parents that their voices are heard. My Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices Act is a comprehensive bill designed to accomplish both these goals. On the one hand, my bill would increase annual authorized funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $5.25 billion, allowing more families to receive vital assistance. On the other hand, it would ensure that funding is allocated in the form of childcare vouchers, which allow parents to pay relative caregivers just the same as they pay childcare centers. Married parents could also use these vouchers to support at-home parental care, as long as they work a combined total of 40 hours per week. In addition, my bill would protect faith-based childcare providers from unfair discrimination and prevent newly married couples from losing childcare benefits. This is the kind of policy proposal America requires—one that is sensitive to families’ realities, and one that will not cost taxpayers a penny. My Respect Parents’ Child Care Choices Act would pay for itself by eliminating the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, a program that costs $5.3 billion per year, but ignores single-earner families and primarily benefits the upper class.  I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to turn this bill into law. I call on Harris and the rest of the Biden administration, too. If they really believe childcare is “one of the most urgent things that parents and families need,” they should be open to increasing childcare funding in a manner consistent with Americans’ wants and needs. The only alternatives are blatant paternalism and hypocrisy. The post Respect Parents’ Childcare Choices appeared first on The American Conservative.

"I feel like music can be anything." The post The Big Moon’s Juliette Jackson on her favourite Pixies song: “They prove that music can go anywhere” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The fan favorite annual event is back and is including some new stars for 2024.

At an event hosted by the National Association of Black Journalists today, Donald Trump sparked shrieks of outrage from the press for suggesting that Kamala Harris may not always have been as “black” as she now claims to be. “I’ve known her for a long time indirectly,” Trump said of Harris. “And she was always of Indian heritage and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black. So I don’t know, is she Indian, or is she black? … Because she was Indian all the way, and then all of the sudden she made a turn and she became a black person.” As amusing as the right-on-cue hysterics were — White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre fumed that Trump’s comments were “completely insulting and repulsive” — the talking point about Harris’ “blackness” is part of a broader pattern of quixotic right-wing lines of attack on the presumptive Democratic nominee. (Trump, to his credit, has largely avoided the worst of these; his remark today was largely a passing aside). The Right’s problem is not that it is skewering Harris for her left-wing racialism, or her desire to elevate black interests above those of the nation, or her steadfast commitment to the most poisonous features of the contemporary Left’s hostility to white people; if anything, the Right isn’t emphasizing any of those enough. The Right’s problem is that when it does bring up race, it often does so in a feeble, impotent, and ultimately self-defeating fashion. As an empirical matter, Harris is half-black, insofar as “black” is an actual racial category denoting Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Her mother is Indian; her father is Jamaican. (A Jamaican immigrant might not qualify as “African-American” according to the broader socio-cultural category of black American identity, but that’s largely irrelevant, for our purposes). Harris attended Howard University, a historically black college in Washington, and was widely touted as the first “black woman” on a major-party presidential ticket in 2020. Various right-wing influencers have obsessively latched onto trying to somehow prove — though it isn’t clear to whom — that she isn’t black, with everything from old headlines about Harris becoming “the first Indian-American senator” to the vice president’s birth certificate. But to what end? The simple truth is that as a political matter, at least, it literally does not matter whether Kamala is black, or black “enough,” or black in the specific way that she should be black. Black voters are going to vote for her in overwhelming numbers, as they have for every Democrat since (at least) Harry Truman. While there is no public opinion data available on exactly how black the black electorate believes Kamala to be, one suspects that the share of black voters who are suspicious of her racial identity is commensurate to (or lower than) the share of blacks who vote Republican — i.e., 10 to 15 percent, at best. The idea that Kamala might not be black would strike most normal voters, of any and every race, as bizarre. She looks black, she sounds black, and the media says she’s black; for all practical political purposes, she is black, regardless of what the feverish right-wing hunt for her precise genetic admixture turns up. Insofar as there is a coherent justification for the Right’s quest to disprove Kamala’s blackness, it tends to be presented as a kind of haphazard appeal to black voters. This is why a cadre of prominent black conservative influencers — most of whom derive their income from constantly assuring their predominantly white audience that actually, it’s the Democrats who are the real racists — have latched onto this talking point, implicitly selling their conservative fans on the fantasy that black voters are going to back the GOP en masse: “One of the worst kept secrets is Black voters actually hate Kamala Harris because she is not Black,” wrote self-proclaimed “Iconic OG Black Gay Veteran Republican Icon” Rob Smith. “Kamala isn’t even Black … Why in the f*** would we vote for her?”, declared Lavern Spicer. “Kamala ‘Not Black’ Harris believes that inviting Megan Thee Stallion on stage to shake her bottom … will win her the black vote,” sneered C.J. Pearson. “DOES SHE THINK WE’RE DUMB?” Even if black voters were convinced by these appeals — and they won’t be — they would vote for Kamala Harris for the same reason that an overwhelming share of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant” was (and still is) meant to tap into the awakening power of the “New America” — the rising tide of blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, and elite white liberals who sought to replace the primarily white, Christian, straight, and male political and cultural establishment that has presided over the nation, in some form or manner, since before the Founding. Constituents within this coalition are united not because a particular figurehead at any given moment looks like them (although that never hurts), but because they share a social, political, economic, and cultural interest in the campaign to wrest power from the hands of the Old America. They have the same enemies, and for that reason, they stick together, no matter how much energy the Right expends trying to persuade them otherwise. But the Right continues to devote an inordinate amount of time to trying to persuade them anyways, because many members of the conservative establishment have — perhaps unbeknownst to them — internalized the premises and formulas of the Left, even as they publicly rage against them. Republicans are desperate to be “diverse,” and are embarrassed by the overwhelming whiteness of their political base. (In his post-Congress apology tour, Kevin McCarthy routinely repeated the complaint that Democrats “looked like America,” while Republicans looked like “the most restrictive country club in America”). They are so eager to avoid being accused of “racism” that they often willingly commit acts of political self-immolation to prove as much, only to find — to their astonishment — that the Left still accuses them of racism anyways. The good news is, whenever the GOP (and the Right more broadly) decides it would like to win again, there is still a mass political constituency waiting for them out there in the hinterlands. If conservatives want to hunt, they should go where the ducks are. READ MORE: Biden Puts Supreme Court on Ballots as His Name Comes Off Them Even More Echoes of 1968 The post Hunting Where the Ducks Are appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The day I knew the media would stop at nothing to destroy Donald Trump was back in 2016 or so when they declared he is a Neo-Nazi anti-Semite. He sent out a thing showing Hillary with a sheriff’s badge, and they said the six-pointed badge was a Jewish star of David. Then CNN and the New York Times dug up some New Jersey LGB activist (the years before “T,” “Q,” and “+” were added), who briefly was spokesman for some extreme-left group with “Anne Frank” in its name, and he did the media circuit declaring that the Trump administration was “infected” with anti-Semitism. I sat there, watching and reading this garbage, and knew right then that Trump would be in for a tsunami of hateful fake news the next eight years. Remember: Jews are the canary in the coal mine. For more than a century, coal miners have been putting a respective canary in their respective mines because most humans cannot detect, until too late, when the mine fills with deadly carbon monoxide. So the canary is there as a life saver. If it is talking, they are fine. If it suddenly dies, they realize the mine is filling with carbon monoxide, and they get out. The canary, not volunteering to do so, gives its life to save theirs. So it is with Jews. Jews do not volunteer for that role, but that role often volunteers Jews. When a stable society starts going after Jews, 100 out of 100 times it will not stop with Jews. Some will feel bad for the beaten or dead Jews, but they will not realize that they are next. It’s been going on for 3,000 years. To keep this to a shorter version: The tsars went after Jews with pogroms. In time, all the non-Jewish Russians got buried under tsarist oppression. The Communists came in and went after the Jews, closing all synagogues and yeshiva schools, and arresting and executing rabbis and others. Eventually, Stalin was murdering everyone. Hitler went after Jews, and no one did a damn thing to stop him. In the end, 40–50 million died. Arabs started hijacking Israeli planes, and others felt bad for the poor Jews. Now everyone is stuck with metal detectors. When it happens to Jews, know with certainty that it soon is coming to a theater near you. So I knew he was in for a tough ride when the Anne Frank garbage started. All the years of NBC adulation for The Apprentice, the gratitude of New York City for that ice skating rink, the admiration over all those hotels, casinos, and golf courses were over. Jews were the canaries. I am national vice president of an organization of 2,500 Orthodox rabbis. We lead a flock of more than a million Jews. No group ever can claim 100 percent same-thinking membership except in elections in Putin’s Russia and in the Ayatollahs’ Iran. But we million represent the strongest, largest, most cohesive body of Trump supporters — and conservative Republicans, in general — in America. No one gets more frustrated than we when we see a Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Ben & Jerry, George Soros, and Doug Emhoff characterize themselves as Jews. To coin a phrase: “Not In Our Name.” Those characters do not observe the Jewish Sabbath according to its laws. They do not eat kosher. They are proud of children who marry homosexuals or lesbians (Schumer) or anti-Israel Arab Muslims (Soros) or, simply, non-Jews who would pressure the hell out of Israel while their children raise money for “Palestinians”(Emhoff). Trump does not reject a characterization by a proud Jewish radio interviewer who calls Jews like Doug Emhoff  “crappy Jews”? We rabbis, because we do not use adjectives like that when describing Jews, do not say it that way. So all we can say is: Amen. Amen. Amen. I have written a million articles and have delivered hundreds of speeches over the years discussing the phenomenon of the Jewish suicide liberal. I will keep it short here. You can google for the longer versions. More than 90 percent of all Jews in America trace their arrival here to grandparents and great-grandparents who arrived between 1881 (when Tsar Alexander II was assassinated) and 1914 (when America closed the gates to all immigration, fearing a Communist invasion amid the Russian Revolution and the outbreak of World War I). Republicans of that era discriminated brutally against those Jews, albeit in a subtle, gentlemanly way. They barred Jews from hotels and country clubs. They imposed quotas barring Jews from colleges and grad schools. Jews who were among the few who did get in and earn advanced degrees could not get jobs in their fields of study. Jews who graduated medical school could not get admittance privileges in hospitals. Jews who graduated law school could not get into law firms. We were treated like blacks and could not even rent homes in many parts of the country. The only difference between us and blacks is that blacks could not tolerate it and got angry and have remained angry and expect reparations and affirmative action and DEI. By contrast, Jews — after 3,000 years of this — expected it. We were just thankful we could worship openly, slaughter kosher meat, and circumcise our newborn boys without pogroms. Instead of reacting with anger, keeping score, and expecting recompense, we dealt with it in our way. We laughed and joked about it. They say we have big noses (unlike, say, Richard Nixon, Arabs, and Persians)? Or that we are cheap (unlike the non-Jews who wake up at 3 in the morning to get in line for a Black Friday sale or who wait to buy at Columbus Day, Presidents Day, and July sales events)? Okay, we have jokes about that. And we did what we always do: If the Other will not give us a fair chance, we will do an end run within the law: We will get so educated that they cannot afford to keep us out. We will start our own law firms and build our own hospitals. We will build our own hotels and country clubs, and we will start our own industries. As blue jeans got big, Levi and Calvin Klein and Ralph Lifshitz (changed to Lauren) and Sergio Valente (i.e., Eli Kaplan) raced in. Upgraded, premium ice cream? Burt Baskin, Irv Robbins, Ben Cohen, Jerry Siegel, Ruby and Rose Mattus (Haagen-Dazs) jumped in. My uncles started a florist business; soon, it grew to employ several in the large family. While the white-shoe Republicans were rejecting and mocking us, the wily Democrats were playing the ethnic card as they do now with blacks, Hispanics, and whoever else they can DEI. In those days, they played the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, and Jews. They welcomed us and gave us jobs. They even recruited us to run for office on their tickets. So the immigrants of 1881–1914 went Democrat. It is just like the Dixie South, who went Democrat for other reasons. What else would make sense? Once a population group adheres to a party, it sticks with the party for over a century like barnacles — long after the party reverses policies with the other party. It makes no sense, but these are proven facts. The White Christian conservative church-goers of the South, who attached to the Democrats during the slavery years in 1860, still were voting only Democrat 120 years later, until Reagan ran against Carter in 1980. I have listed in past articles the remarkable record that seven different Bible Belt White Christian southern states of Dixie still were electing only left-wing Democrats for governor and their respective two U.S. senate seats for 120 years, sticking the Reagan they loved with a Democrat Congress. Jewish voting patterns are exactly the same as everyone else. Jews arrived later, so are changing later, beginning with the Orthodox. People take time to switch. Jews personally knew their Democrat council member, mayor, governor, or U.S. senator. He ate at their homes, kissed their babies, attended their banquets. The Republicans were AWOL. Habits die hard. Look at the White Bible Belt Southern Christians from 1860 to 1980. We now live in an era of devout Catholics and fallen Catholics. We million-plus Jews of faith and religious devotion to G-d are amazed when people point to Soros, Schumer, and that garbage alone. We don’t say it out loud — because we are polite and not in the mood for a pogrom here right now — but I don’t care, so I’ll say it: All the LGBTQ garbage and “gay marriage” and despicable Drag Queen mockeries of The Last Supper and perversion of public schooling of children and abortion-on-demand, even in the ninth month and even after birth, happened because a Catholic president, Joe Biden, and Catholic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole litany of Catholics led the charge to immorality. And, before Protestants say, “Yeah, it was the Catholics,” the Clintons are Protestant, and likewise were Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Virginia former Gov. Ralph Northam, and Obama (whatever the heck he is). So we Jews of faith and devotion wonder: If the Vatican bans homosexuality and “gay marriage,” and abortion, all immorality, then what’s with the most powerful Catholics in this country? One after another: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, John Kerry, Sen. Tim Kaine, Robert O’Rourke, the Castro Brothers, Xavier Becerra, Sen. Dick Durbin, the Kennedy family of Massachusetts, Sen. Patty Murray, Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Jack Reed, former Sen. Bob Menendez, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, dozens of pro-abortion House members like Ted Lieu of California, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and just so many others are among American leftist celebrities, entertainers, and media personalities. Devout Catholics, Protestants, and Jews of faith and Biblical adherence all share the identical pain, wanting to shout to the Heavens: “NOT IN OUR NAME!” But we cannot get recognized for our love of G-d and commitment to morality and decency because the media wing of the Democrat Party shut us out. Non-observant Jews vote in almost the same percentages as do non-devout Catholics. The media does not know how to count and survey Jewish voters. Seriously — How do the pollsters determine the person they are surveying is a Jew? Paul Newman? No. The daughter of Kamala Harris’s husband? No. Joy Behar? No. The Three Stooges? Yes! (nyuck, nyuck, nyuck). Do pollsters require the guy to present his circumcision? Do you know how to tell a Jew from a non-Jew? (Not a joke; no punchline.) They ask, and the leftist says “I’m Jewish.” But if his mother is not Jewish, then he is one of yours, not one of ours. For 3,300 years, that has been the only recognized definition of a Jew. At least half of the people who affiliate with “Reform Judaism” are intermarried with non-Jewish offspring. Even many of their rabbis are not. Gallup, Reuters/Ipsos, NYT/Siena, Quinnipiac, and Rasmussen do not get to determine who is Jewish. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel gets to determine. Many Jews are so freaked out by double standards that exist that they determine the best way to avoid discrimination is by overtly projecting themselves as “not one of them.” But how can they do that when everyone knows they are one of them? They say, “I may be Jewish, but I am anti-Zionist.” That’s what it was in the 1950s. But the Arabs and real Jew-haters have co-opted the “anti-Zionist” badge. So the Schumers and Ben & Jerry types now say “I hate Netanyahu. Now can I be your majority leader and join your club? I even vote Democrat! See? My concern is not Israel but plastic straws.” The Democrats of Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, Nancy Pelosi, and The Squad may abandon Schumer for left-wing Catholic Dick Durbin if that Jew backs Israel too strongly. So Schumer and Jerrold Nadler, who fears being primaried out by an Ocasio lieutenant, grasp onto power by saying the Israelis should overthrow democratically elected Netanyahu, and then Schumer grills cheese on a raw burger. The others are the same: the Spielbergs, the Streisands, the whole bunch of them, are terrified of being blacklisted. So they are silent over the campus riots or, instead, belch that they “oppose anti-Semitism — and Islamophobia.” Get it? That way they are allowed to remain in Hollywood. President Trump is 100 percent correct when he says that a Jewish voter who now votes blindly Democrat, just by course of habit and not by virtue of carefully comparing the Trump record with the Obama and Biden records, needs to have his head examined. He is right. When he says that Kamala Harris is anti-Jewish, he is right. When they come back and say, “But she is married to a Jew,” and he retorts that Emhoff is a “crappy Jew,” he is absolutely right. Amen. When he says, of American Jews who vote for Democrats who hurt Israel, that “they are disloyal to Israel,” he is right. The left-wing media race to quote left-wing Jews who call that “anti-Semitic.” They never quote the 40 percent-and-growing population of Jews — Torah-observant, American-patriotic — who respond “Amen!” The scared and fearful assimilating knee-jerk woke Jews go into conniptions: “Oh no, the neo-Nazis will say we are not loyal to America. Trump is ruining us.” Fools. The Neo-Nazis say it anyway. We are blessed in America that, while our allegiance is only to America, we also can be loyal to our heritage. Of course American Jews are connected to the Land of our Patrarchs and Matriarchs. Non-Jews don’t need Trump to know that. Of course Trump is right. What is so great about him is that he bypasses political correctness and says what is. When he says people like Soros and Bernie Sanders hate their religion, of course that is true! Anti-Semitic? Watch this Mark Levin clip, where he reads from an American Spectator article by this writer. Ninety percent of Orthodox Jews know that Trump gets us, and we get him. It took 120 years for the White Protestant Christians of the Deep South to move to the GOP. If you saw the RNC, the Jewish transition is in progress. Millions of Jews agree with Trump’s criticisms of the “crappy” ones. Amen. Subscribe to Rav Fischer’s YouTube channel here at bit.ly/3REFTbk  and follow him on X (Twitter) at @DovFischerRabbi to find his latest informative and inspiring classes, interviews, speeches, and observations. READ MORE: The Path to Beating Harris Here’s How to Break Up the Squad, St. Louis. Vote Against Cori Bush. Mr. Netanyahu Goes to Washington, and Mr. Biden Comes to Jesus The post Millions of Jews Agree With Trump’s Criticisms of the ‘Crappy’ Ones appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics, particularly the appalling mockery of The Last Supper, has been roundly condemned, and deservedly so. The ridiculous “Bacchic Tableau” and the even more ridiculous post facto claim that this was innocent fun were disgusting. In offering such a lame apology, the International Olympic Committee and the Paris Organizing Committee have fully earned our scorn. This, however, was all of a piece with a literal parade of insult and bad taste, exemplified by the repeated “beheadings” of Marie Antoinette, among other outrageous nonsense. These Olympics have earned the contempt of every thoughtful person, and not just for the opening ceremonies. French President Emmanuel Macron’s government spent over a billion euros to make the Seine swimmable, and the left-wing mayor of Paris made a show of herself bobbing along in the famously polluted river, carefully keeping her head above water. But a hard rain on the opening night flushed more sewage into the river, forcing the postponement of various aquatic events. Controversy has erupted over the apparent inclusion of two men in the women’s boxing events. Even the meals offered to the Olympic athletes have become an occasion for climate change virtue-signaling rather than appropriate athletic nourishment. And each day seemingly brings more reminders that these are truly the “woke” Olympics. Unfortunately, however, some conservative critics have taken this as an excuse for trotting out the same tired criticisms of “the French” that have become common coinage among Anglo-Americans since at least the Second World War. Don’t get me wrong. I have no patience for Macron’s extravagant pretensions to European, even world leadership. France, once again, and sadly, teeters on the edge of riotous insurrection, requiring the deployment of some 55,000 police and soldiers to protect these games from unassimilated Islamists and hardcore leftists — Antifa, for example, has now taken root in France. But here’s the thing. When conservative commentators conflate the values of these Olympics with the values of France, they are as much off the mark as those who would lump Alabama or North Dakota together with San Francisco or New York City. These are, fundamentally, the Paris Olympics, and the values on display are very much those of an urban progressive “elite” wholly similar to our own.  There are many in France — and not exclusively within the ranks of Marine Le Pen’s “National Rally” — who have forthrightly condemned the Last Supper display, along with much of the other egregious leftist virtue signaling. Moreover, they see in this and other similar displays stark evidence of how American academic preoccupations have, in effect, “colonized” their country’s cultural discourse. They see “woke” as an American import, not something native. Certainly, it’s not something native to most of France outside of the Paris “bubble,” which has more in common with New York than with the French hinterland. “Flyover country” may have emerged to describe the vast swath between our own East and West coasts, but it applies quite nicely to much of France. The “yellow vest” movement might not have exactly been MAGA, but the animating impulse, a revolt against both Paris and Brussels, closely mirrors our own rejection of rule by unelected D.C. bureaucrats, enabled by a compliant mainstream media. So, too, the massive vote for the Right (not, one should insist, the “far right”) in the recent elections to the European and French national parliaments. And the French Catholic conference of bishops categorically condemned the display. The Last Supper tableau, predictably, found defenders not only in France, but also, loudly, from our progressive culture warriors. Predictably, the New York Times leapt to its defense, noting that “art historians are divided” with respect to its meaning. Newsweek went looking and, after some apparent effort, found a handful of Christian “leaders” willing to “counter conservative fury” about the performance. We shouldn’t be surprised by this since the so-called “Bacchic” tableau represented a convergence between the worst aspects of French and American progressivism. A “revolutionary and transgressive” sexuality, after all, pioneered by French philosophers such as Derrida, Foucault, and Bataille, found its most energetic proponents within the ranks of Ivy League language and philosophy departments, from which it spread and was magnified by our own progressives. So, properly, the story should be about the sins of international progressivism rather than the deficiencies of “the French.” And we might also take a moment to divest ourselves once and for all of such phrases as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” to take the most unworthy of many contemptuous tropes. French casualties in World War I totaled some 1.3 million killed or missing, more than 10 times those suffered by the U.S., and this in a country whose population at the time was less than half that of the U.S. It was the French Army at Verdun, after all, that embodied the famous phrase, “They Shall Not Pass.” In World War II, the French generals were outmaneuvered by the German blitzkrieg, and a feckless political elite simply gave up. But “the French,” in the words of an American military historian, fought “doggedly and well” in 1940, suffering over 90,000 killed in action and some 200,000 wounded. Outmaneuvered, yes, surrounded and cut off frequently, but outfought — maybe not so much. And, reequipped in 1942 and 1943 by the U.S. and the U.K., French forces made an impressive comeback in North Africa at Bir Hakeim, during the Italian campaign and the invasion of southern France, and, famously, with Leclerc’s 2nd Armored Division in its service as part of Patton’s Third Army. In a few weeks’ time, I will be returning to eastern France once again, renewing my acquaintance with a French World War II commemorative group, “ThanksGIs,” who for decades have worked to preserve the memory of their region’s liberation by searching old battlefields to recover the remains of American MIAs and preserving the history of those desperate days with annual ceremonies, lavish public displays, and beautiful memorials. These good people are not particularly political. I honestly do not know if they are “left” or “right,” and I do know that an American gloss on these categories is scarcely relevant to how most French people see themselves.  What I do know is that the members of this and other similar groups — there are many — are united by an appreciation for the ordinary American GIs who brought freedom from Nazi oppression to their parents and grandparents in 1944, an appreciation that they’ve energetically passed on to a younger generation, who turn out regularly to celebrate the U.S. 5th Infantry and 7th Armored Divisions and who lovingly restore the battlefields on which they fought. As the son of one of the “liberators,” I was given the honor of speaking at one such ceremony in 2017. This time, my daughter and I will be attending alongside hundreds of French men and women and some 20 other Americans, also descendants of the soldiers who fought the bloody battles for the Moselle bridgeheads. (Sadly, the soldiers themselves are no longer available to attend.) But my dad and his comrades would be deeply honored, and so, too, should all Americans, for these French friends truly appreciate us and share much with us. Two cheers for France, then, two cheers for those with whom we share so much, and one cheer withheld for the noxious French progressive elites whose woke idiocy has been on full display during these Paris Olympics. Noxious progressivism, after all, is an international phenomenon, very much promoted from our own country, and by our country’s official representatives.  I’m told that our State Department will attend September’s liberation ceremony, someone from the U.S. consulate in Strasbourg. I’m sure that his or her remarks will have been carefully vetted to be appropriate for the occasion. But thereby hangs the final tale. During our most recent “Pride Month,” this same consulate posted a picture on Facebook of the consulate adorned in the usual rainbow colors. The post also included a message celebrating the consulate’s efforts to promote LGBTQ+, etc. That, sadly, is our official U.S. government message to “the French.” So before we treat the obscenity of The Last Supper tableau as peculiarly French, we might, as a nation, take a moment to look in the mirror.  The post The Paris Olympics Aren’t Representative of the France I Know appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

FX’s Shōgun made history recently by winning 25 Emmy nominations. The historical drama, which is an adaptation of James Clavell’s 1975 bestselling novel, has been compared to HBO’s Succession — i.e., the three-time winner of the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series. As Shōgun’s creators Justin Marks and Rachel Kondo have announced the eventual release of two new seasons, some are anticipating a similar kind of success from the FX series. Shōgun takes place in Japan during the feudal Sengoku period in the early 1600s, when Portuguese Catholic missionaries of the Jesuit order — along with traders — had established a prominent presence in the region. The plot is centered around the story of a shipwrecked English navigator who is forced to immerse himself in Japanese politics and adopts the title of Anjin; Lady Mariko, a married woman with a dishonorable family history and a mysterious past who serves as the Anjin’s translator; and Lord Toranaga, a cunning daimyo struggling for political power and the unification of Japan. The series’ popularity and positive reception may be due, at least in part, to the accuracy and quality of its historical portrayals. For instance, Lady Mariko’s walking has drawn the attention of viewers for its accurate representation of the way Japanese women walked at the time. Many other such customs and traditions are likewise captured. Most notably, the practice of seppuku is depicted in a contextualized setting that allows viewers to further understand the significance of honor in Japanese society. Additionally, a great portion of the dialogue is in Japanese, which allows the audience to identify more deeply with John Blackthorne, the Anjin, who is navigating his new life as an outsider and foreigner. The costume design has also received much praise, particularly for its authenticity, being described as an “ode to Japan’s Sengoku period.” Perhaps most importantly, Shōgun accomplished what few other historical dramas have in recent years — it succeeded in providing a non-revisionist representation of history. Specifically, in its portrayal of European and Japanese interactions, the series does not adopt the typical oppressor–oppressed narrative. Rather, it highlights the complexities and nuances of feudalism, exploration, trade, and religion. For example, there is an emphasis on the animosity between the English and the Portuguese, especially as it pertains to matters of religion and political influence in Japan. Furthermore, the role of religion permeates the entire series. As a Japanese Catholic convert, Lady Mariko exemplifies the blend of Christianity and Japanese custom. She prays the rosary regularly and takes Communion when possible, but she also adheres, quite strictly, to the norms and traditions of her society. At times, her duties as a Catholic are in tension with her role as an honorable lady in Sengoku Japan. This is especially evident in the last two episodes, when she struggles to reconcile her decision to commit seppuku with her desire (ignited by her faith) to avoid damnation. Lady Mariko also harbors a deep sense of loyalty toward the Portuguese, especially her priest, Father Martin Alvito, who is both her mentor and teacher. It was through him that she learned how to speak Portuguese, and thereby serve as a translator for John. Paradoxically, however, her partiality toward the Portuguese, and to Catholicism more broadly, is a cause of tension between herself and John throughout the series. John, whose status as a Protestant and therefore a “heretic” carries with it a series of disadvantages in Japan, is deeply distrustful of Father Alvito, and of Portuguese Jesuits generally. These conflicts are what make the series dynamic, nuanced, and, of course, historically accurate. Compelling stories are seldom defined by the oppressor–oppressed dichotomy, perhaps because history itself can rarely be understood (accurately, at least) through such a dull and shallow lens. Put simply, Shōgun’s success is truly warranted, and we should celebrate it. One can only hope that, without Clavell’s novel to guide them, the series’ creators remain rooted in the original story as they work on the next two seasons. The post <i>Shōgun</i> is a Great Historical Drama appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On the morning of April 17, pro-Hamas protesters seized Columbia University. The incident, featuring harassment of Jewish students and a Vietnam-style encampment, culminated in the violent occupation of a campus building and remained at the forefront of American political discourse for nearly three weeks. Months later, three campus administrators were suspended for sending anti-Semitic messages in a group chat, leaving Jewish Americans across the country both perplexed and disturbed. Why was an allegedly open-minded Ivy League university suddenly so hostile to its Jewish population? As a two-time Columbia alum, I have been personally devastated by the faculty, student, and administrative response to Israel, yet I am not the least bit surprised. Anti-Semitism has been brewing in the academic mind since long before Oct. 7, yet Columbia’s responsibility for the rise of anti-Semitism across American college campuses is seldom discussed. As an English major at Columbia, I experienced anti-Semitism firsthand in my department. Most notably, I cut ties with my undergraduate thesis adviser, Professor Bruce Robbins, for his radical views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Professor Robbins has claimed that calls for intifada on campus do not qualify as genocidal speech against Jewish students and has pushed extremist rhetoric in his classes on the backgrounds of literary criticism. He has praised Jean-Paul Sartre’s famous endorsement of political violence in his introduction to Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth and routinely assigns far-left theorists whose central claim to fame lies in their disdain for the West. Professor Robbins is no political outlier at Columbia. English professor Jack Halberstam, for instance, joined in on the Pro-Hamas encampment, lecturing students about the failings of their university president, and Middle Eastern Studies professor Joseph Massad infamously dubbed the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7 “awesome” in an opinion piece. At Columbia, students enrolled in the introductory “History of The Modern Middle East” course receive a biased overview of the region from pro-Palestinian professor Rashid Khalidi, who routinely peppers his assertions with a tinge of anti-Semitism. Columbia professors have been endorsing reductive pro-Palestinian viewpoints and alienating Jewish students since well before the attacks of Oct. 7, but why? One potential answer lies in the work of Columbia professor Edward Said, the father of the postcolonial school of literary theory, who perhaps single-handedly inaugurated the Pro-Palestinian movement among literary scholars and intellectual elites in the 1970s. Said’s postcolonial theory explains the world by borrowing a concept from postmodernism called binary opposition, which purports that members of “the West” have created an imaginary cultural concept of “the East,” which, in turn, allows the former to subjugate the latter. Said calls this Orientalism, and it is this dichotomy that has allowed the colonial Western man to oppress the Eastern “Other.” Most famously, he identifies a clear application of postcolonial theory to the Israel–Palestine conflict, arguing that the displacement of Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East was a direct result of the establishment of the Israeli state by colonialist powers and Western-style imperialism. The anti-Semitism I experienced as an English major is thus unsurprising: Columbia’s English department itself is the birthplace of the theory that Israel is an oppressive, colonialist power. Over the next 40 years, postcolonial theory would become mainstream in the American academy, espoused by professors following in Said’s footsteps who now control much of the intellectual discourse surrounding Palestine on campus. It is no wonder that Jewish professors have been targets of anti-Semitic vandalism since long before Oct. 7: the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment among supposedly liberal, free-thinking academics has permeated Columbia’s academic curriculum, influencing campus politics and discourse. When this sort of rhetoric is being fed to Columbia freshmen for breakfast, it is not shocking that now, 20 years after the death of professor Edward Said, Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus. Columbia might have a fraught history with anti-Semitism, yet we have the power to alter history. As a college counseling professional, I work with many Jewish clients who no longer wish to submit applications to Columbia, yet I see things differently. Without Jewish voices on campus, we only capitulate to the pro-Hamas mob and allow this behavior to continue. Anti-Semitism has always existed, and it will continue to exist unless we encourage more Jewish students to matriculate to elite colleges and fight back. As a Columbia alum, I have been disillusioned, yet I have also found a voice of hope for a better future through the Jewish community. The more Jewish students we have on American college campuses, the faster we can create a better tomorrow for the Jewish people. The post Columbia University’s Fraught Anti-Semitic History Explains Its Present Crisis appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Sisters of Charity of New York announced last year that it will not accept any new members. The announcement was more of a formality than anything else, as no one has joined the order in more than twenty years. Founded by St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in 1817 and recognized as the Sisters of Charity of New York in 1846, the order had more than 1,300 sisters in the 1960s. Today, only 154 sisters remain, and their median age is eighty-five years old.  The Sisters of Charity of New York isn’t the only Catholic religious order with an aging population and no new vocations. As of 2022, four out of five orders had no new vocations, according to a study conducted by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). Amid this decline, it’s easy to spot the orders that continue to receive new vocations, in part because they’re still wearing habits.  In an attempt to “modernize” Catholicism following Vatican II, many religious orders abandoned their traditional garb — the Sisters of Charity of New York among them. Nuns traded in their habits for modest blouses and skirts or slacks. But it appears that young people don’t want 1970s–style Catholicism. Ninety-three percent of women who entered religious life in 2022 chose an order that wears the habit, as did 65 percent of men. What’s more, eight in ten new entrants to religious life were “very much” influenced by their religious order’s practice of wearing a habit. This article is taken from The American Spectator’s latest print magazine. Subscribe to receive the entire magazine. Desire for traditional habits isn’t the only signifier that today’s young Catholics are hungry for something different. Each generation of Catholics is smaller than the one preceding it, but those who remain faithful are noticeably drawn toward more traditional, orthodox expressions of Catholicism.  Since 2000, more than half of newly ordained priests self-describe as theologically orthodox, and that number has grown with each year. A study by the Catholic Project found that more than 80 percent of priests ordained since 2020 are doctrinally orthodox, with less than 5 percent calling themselves “very progressive” in matters of Catholic theology. By comparison, at least 80 percent of priests ordained between 1960 and 1980 identified as theologically progressive or as “middle-of-the-road” on Catholic doctrine.  Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our latest print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. And just as recently ordained priests are likely to be theologically orthodox, so too are recent entrants to religious life. Three in four entrants in 2022 said they were “very much attracted” by their order’s fidelity to the Church.  Changes in broader American culture explain the somewhat recent swing toward traditionalism. Monsignor James Patrick Shea provides a paradigm for understanding the relationship between personal faith and culture in his book From Christendom to Apostolic Mission. In Christendom, Christianity is deeply entangled with broader culture; but in an apostolic age, the prevailing culture is either hostile to or unfamiliar with Christianity.  In order to withstand the gravity of secular culture, Catholics must cling not only to the teachings of their faith, but also to their distinct culture. When surveying young adults who had been raised Catholic, sociologists Nicolette Manglos-Weber and Christian Smith found that the young adults who identified as Catholic and still practiced their faith were generally “more likely to have grown up with parents who were committed, vocal, and reasonably well educated about Catholicism.” That is, younger Catholics engaged with faith as an integrated way of life, not just as an intellectual assent or Sunday morning obligation.  During the era of Vatican II, numerous American Catholics dispensed with the trappings of Catholic culture and instead sought conformity with modern Christianity. Nuns traded their habits for lay clothing, church architecture imitated Protestant styles, and guitars and tambourines replaced Gregorian chant and the organ. Suddenly, after thousands of years of continuity, Catholics walked away from their distinctive culture. Today, many Catholics are reclaiming it.  A growing number of young people are gravitating toward more traditional expressions of their faith, whether through joining habited religious orders or simply seeking out a parish that incorporates traditional hymns into its Mass. For some, this choice is a deliberate rejection of modernity’s emptiness in favor of something passed down through the ages. Others are guided by an instinctive desire for tradition or an attraction to beauty. This rekindled interest in the Church’s age-old treasures is not without its opposition. To some Catholics, chapel veils and altar rails are signs of regression, not endurance. Some people genuinely prefer their 1970–style Catholicism and do not understand the resurgence of traditionalism. But, as one priest told the Catholic Project, most young priests today are theologically conservative because “the super-progressive wing didn’t really replicate themselves.” In terms of theological Darwinism, traditional Catholicism seems best equipped to survive — not least because traditional Catholicism has already endured for thousands of years. Much of the so-called “rise in orthodoxy” among young Catholics is more accurately understood as a recovery of the Catholic culture that was stripped away from the life of the Church during the era of Vatican II. In many instances, it is a return to the norms established by the Church during the actual council, which was often incorrectly interpreted as carte blanche for wide-ranging liturgical changes. Unbeknownst to most people, for example, Gregorian chant remains the Church’s preferred form of music within the Mass. Today’s young Catholics recognize the task ahead of them. Living the faith amidst the onslaught of secular culture — and raising a new generation of Catholics in that hostile environment — has led many to reclaim the traditions passed down through the Church for generations. These young traditionalists recognize that the continued practice of Catholicism demands more than intellectual assent to doctrine; it also requires a commitment to a shared culture and way of life, both in the pews and in the fabric of their daily lives. Maybe this new orthodoxy isn’t the folly of youth but rather the wisdom to identify that which endures. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our latest print magazine on the future of religion in America. The post Young Believers Are Fueling a Renaissance of Catholic Culture appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.