When you hear the phrase “childless cat ladies,” you know exactly what I’m talking about. They’re the kind of women who were not only members of a sorority in college, but who also played up the drama and backbiting in the sorority game. Since they enjoy drama, they’re into politics now. They drink too much wine, laugh intensely and insincerely, and have a high-pitched nasally voice that grates the nerves. Oh, and they probably own a cat. If they own a dog, it has its strollers, bibs, outfits, and a pampered life. Cats don’t put up with that kind of nonsense. When JD Vance complained about the role these childless cat ladies play in our national government on a Fox News segment in 2021, few people really batted an eye. Vance wasn’t in the U.S. Senate yet, and it hadn’t even entered the imagination that he could be tapped as Donald Trump’s running mate. So, what did he say? He said the country was run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” Three years later, these childless cat ladies let us know in childless-cat-lady style that they are not only offended but that they’ve also been holding on to this grudge for the last three years. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska huffed that the statement was “offensive to many women.” She’s not the only one. Women wrote to the New York Times with their criticisms. One intentionally misunderstood the statement (she had three cats and struggled with infertility); another complained that Vance was saying women who choose not to have kids are not “legitimate members of society.” First, Vance was barely on the political stage when he made the comment. That doesn’t mean he didn’t mean what he said when he said it, but it does mean that we can forgive him for comments that aren’t exactly politically savvy. Second, Vance is right. But he’s not talking about the neighborhood grandmas who never met the right man, own three fluffy cats, and give every kid under the age of 50 chocolate chip cookies at every opportunity. He’s talking about the embittered women infected by feminism who have turned their intuitive gifts to vicious ends. Many of them do have children, and some of them don’t have cats, but they have wholeheartedly adopted an attitude that prefers cats to kids. Don’t believe me? The Washington Post ran a cartoon called “Ex-childless Cat Ladies.” It featured women with their screaming, ill-behaved children navigating a grocery store and complaining about how “cats were cheaper.” Sure, it was drawn by a man, but it encapsulates the way these feminists look at women and motherhood perfectly. It’s a problem Carrie Gress addressed in her book The Anti-Mary Exposed. You don’t have to have a Marian devotion to recognize that the denial of motherhood as fundamental to womanhood is harmful to women and to society. We’ve spent the last 60 or so years spaying women. We’ve told our daughters to put away their dolls and put on little pink suit jackets and carry around bejeweled briefcases. “It’s empowering,” we promised them. When they grow up and can’t figure out how to fill the massive hole in their chest, we give them antidepressants. These girls turn into Vance’s “childless cat ladies.” They whine about victimhood, and the scary thing is that they’re not wrong. They’re the victims of a society that told them to pursue a career without worrying about putting diapers on a child. One of those women writing to the New York Times asked Vance: “Are you saying I must be miserable because I chose not to have children?” The hard and unpleasant answer is yes — not because you chose not to have children, but because you chose not to be a mother. The post Vance Is Right. Our Society Is Plagued by Childless Cat Ladies. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In the old days of journalism, conservatives had a legitimate beef about the way that newspaper editors and broadcast outlets served as gatekeepers for the dissemination of news. I got my start in journalism in a city that had one newspaper that was delivered to the doorstep every morning, and it published only one right-leaning column a week. In the face of declining readership, it decided to open the pages to more conservative voices, and I eagerly jumped at the chance. In those days, we had too many gatekeepers, but the recent dissemination of a false story (reportedly started as an irreverent joke) about GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance has reminded us that we now have too few gatekeepers. There’s no easy fix to create a sense of fairness, balance, and decency. I would never advocate the involvement of government or excessive online policing, but I’m not optimistic that we can significantly improve the current media environment. In those old days, that newspaper’s news pages weren’t any better balanced than its opinion pages. This was in the early 1990s. These days, I often hear Americans remember when TV news talking heads “impartially” reported on the day’s news events, forgetting that, at the time, we all complained about the liberal bias of the three virtually indistinguishable nightly news hosts. Conservatives were frustrated at how hard it was to get alternate viewpoints and important news stories onto the air. With the creation of social media, the attempt at balance has become something of a moot point. Americans now read whatever sources conform to their existing biases. Online influencers and personalities have built massive audiences catering to their particular niches that inflame those biases and passions. This isn’t entirely a bad thing. One could never have expected balance in any particular article or publication. One can only find balance by reading a variety of pieces and journals — provided a reader actually seeks out balance. But it’s frustrating that in the new wild, open online world, there’s so little self-policing of content. You can now set up an account on X and can become a media celebrity. Nuanced views rarely draw legions of readers, so the system rewards the most outrageous personalities. It also rewards absurdity and rumor, even if they are rooted in parody. The Vance example serves as a reminder of the dangers of a world without editors — but also of the reality that many people just don’t care if the information they are enjoying is untrue. There are plenty of legitimate critiques of the Ohio senator. There are plenty of critiques that fairly center on his policy positions. And Democratic partisans have every right to target his past speeches. In the past, none of those videos (many of which are enlightening) would have surfaced. However, my X feed is inundated with jokes about Vance and, well, sofas. For those of you who missed this nonsense, some online writer apparently claimed that Vance’s book included a section where he admitted to having had a sexual encounter with a sofa. It was joke (a bad one), but it has spawned endless sofa memes. It became such a thing that the Associated Press reported on it and noted that the story was a total fabrication. Then AP took down its fact-checking story because it didn’t go through the publication’s standard editing process. That fiasco revealed the tough position mainstream media finds itself, as it feels compelled to respond to online rumors — even as it tries to uphold traditional journalism standards. As the New York Post reported, “The salacious hoax spread like wildfire on social media, reportedly sparked by an X user who tweeted out a description of the alleged lewd act complete with a bogus citation. Of course, no such passage exists in Vance’s bestseller, Hillbilly Elegy, but that didn’t stop the rumor from spreading — with many apparently believing it was true.” Whatever one’s views of Vance, he really shouldn’t be subject to salacious hoaxes — nor should anyone, no matter how much one might dislike their politics. I read myriad posts by online snarksters promoting that particular story and was flabbergasted that many of them clearly knew that it was a hoax and yet reposted it anyway. Say what you will about traditional media sources, but it’s still not acceptable in that medium to spread stories that aren’t true. Academics have engaged in voluminous research about the dangers of misinformation (false stuff) and disinformation (purposefully false stuff) — and proposing a variety of mostly pointless and censorious government “solutions.” I still believe the new media world is better than the old one, as a world with too few gatekeepers seems less dangerous to me than a world with too many of them. Nevertheless, I can’t come up with a good answer to this question: What do we do when news consumers aren’t particularly interested in the truth? Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post Online Readers Wallow in Misinformation appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ten years ago, the United Nations took an extraordinary step by denouncing North Korea for its awful human rights record. The situation has worsened, as the COVID pandemic caused Pyongyang to effectively seal its borders. Human Rights Watch recently reported that this crackdown “has effectively closed off North Korea from the rest of the world and stopped almost all cross-border movement of people, formal and informal commercial trade, and humanitarian aid.” The North has long topped the list of global human rights abusers, criticized even by other authoritarian states. For years, many of the worst governments joined the Human Rights Council and defended each other from criticism. However, Pyongyang found itself virtually friendless when the Human Rights Council created the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the United Nation’s Human Rights Council. The commission faced a difficult task, reporting: “The most significant investigative challenge faced by the commission, aside from the inability to have access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, was the fear of reprisals by witnesses. Most of the potential witnesses residing outside the State were afraid to testify, even on a confidential basis, because they feared for the safety of family members and assumed that their conduct was still being clandestinely monitored by the authorities.” Nevertheless, the commission proceeded, and its investigation revealed horrific levels of repression. For instance, the body stated, “Systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In many instances, the violations found entailed crimes against humanity based on State policies.” The commission further stated: “[A]mong the most striking features of the State has been its claim to an absolute monopoly over information and total control of organized social life. The commission finds that there is an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, information and association.” It is difficult for someone living in the West to imagine such a life. One’s position in North Korea was once almost entirely determined by the songbun system, which assigned people to different political/social classes based on family status and regime loyalty. That system has weakened in recent years, as corruption and markets have empowered new actors. Nevertheless, observed the commission, “significant segments of the population who have neither the resources nor favorable songbun find themselves increasingly marginalized and subject to further patterns of discrimination, given that basic public services have collapsed or now effectively require payment.” North Koreans enjoy no freedom of movement. Food is used “as a means of control over the population. It has prioritized those whom the authorities believe to be crucial in maintaining the regime over those deemed expendable.” And the authorities ruthlessly maintain their power: “The police and security forces of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea systematically employ violence and punishments that amount to gross human rights violations in order to create a climate of fear that pre-empts any challenge to the current system of government and to the ideology underpinning it.” Unsurprisingly, the commission concluded that Pyongyang had committed crimes against humanity. The list was long and terrible: “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.” Some observers held hope for change after Kim Jong Un succeeded his father in December 2011. He had spent some time in school in Switzerland, becoming a fan of the Chicago Bulls, and later dabbled in Western culture. For instance, Disney characters made an appearance at a 2012 concert attended by Kim. In 2018, he and his wife appeared at a Pyongyang event featuring 11 South Korean music acts. However, he has dramatically reversed course. Now the regime denounces foreign entertainment as a “vicious cancer” and imprisons or executes those caught listening, watching, or distributing South Korean music and videos or using South Korean lingo. Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch released a 161-page report detailing the further closing of the North Korean mind. The regime has largely ended trans-border traffic, the group has reported: Ostensibly to address the Covid-19 pandemic, North Korean authorities instituted strict border and regional lockdowns, issued a shoot-on-sight order to guards—still in effect in January 2024—for any person or wild animal approaching the northern border, fortified or built new border fences and security facilities, imposed strict limitations on foreign trade and domestic travel and distribution of food and essential products, strengthened implementation of rules and regulations, cracked down on critical informal trade, and implemented excessive and abusive restrictions on freedom of movement and quarantine measures. The DPRK crackdown has been unusually brutal, largely ending a trade once fueled by bribes to border guards. Moreover, “The government also further tightened already strict restrictions on communication with the outside world and access to information, while intensifying other ideological controls to prevent unrest.” Although the ostensible justification for sealing the border was to keep North Korea COVID-free, the regime had a far more malign agenda. Human Rights Watch explained that Pyongyang “sought to reimpose its control in areas in which its dominance had weakened over the past two and half decades: in particular, control over the border, market activity, unsanctioned travel, and access to information.” The North recently underwent its periodic Human Rights Council human rights review. It faced the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, which has detailed the DPRK’s extensive system of prison and labor camps. The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea focused on this issue when addressing the council: satellite imagery and escapees’ testimonies continue to prove the existence and expansion of such camps. HRNK has found the continued operation of political prison camps (kwan-li-so) and long-term prison labor facilities (kyo-hwa-so). Kwan-li-so are high-security political prison camps primarily used for detaining political prisoners, where individuals are deported without due process or legal proceeding. Here, most inmates are imprisoned for life together with their families up to three generations of family members. Prisoners detained in political prison camps are accused of having engaged in “political crimes”, including any form of behavior or conduct considered as a threat to the State. In Kyo-hwa-so facilities individuals are imprisoned for criminal and political offenses, including violent and economic crimes but also for exercising their basic human rights. The regime often sends individuals to these camps for re-education purposes or as a form of punishment for committing criminal offenses. Inside of kyo-hwa-so, detainees are subjected to forced labor and constant abuse, and guards have the legitimacy of beating, punishing, and torturing prisoners without facing any accountability. There is more, so much more, to the North’s odious human rights practices. The State Department’s 2023 country report on the DPRK makes for equally depressing reading. The State Department pointed to “arbitrary or unlawful killings,” “enforced disappearance,” “torture,” “arbitrary arrest,” lack of judicial independence, “political prisoners,” “transnational repression,” privacy violations, “punishment of family members,” “serious restrictions on freedom of expression,” “internet freedom,” freedom of assembly and association, “religious freedom,” and “freedom of movement,” lack of political freedom, “serious government corruption,” restrictions on human rights organizations, “extensive gender-based violence,” human trafficking, restrictions on workers’ rights, and child labor. In short, the Kim dynasty has left few human rights unmolested. Unfortunately, it is easier to detail the North’s abuses than offer a means to end them. Indeed, Pyongyang’s ever-expanding nuclear program — the regime appears to be engaged in a major nuclear build-up while developing ICBMs capable of targeting the U.S. homeland — neutralizes military threats and will provide substantial diplomatic leverage when Kim decides to reengage Washington. Complicating the situation is Russia’s recent rapprochement with the DPRK, since in retaliation for U.S. aid to Ukraine Moscow could offer technical assistance to speed Kim’s efforts. In practice, denuclearization is a dead end. If there is any diplomatic deal to be had, it likely is some form of arms control. Still, the Kim dynasty looks shaky. The execution of children is a desperate measure. It might be able to terrorize North Koreans into submission, but for how long? Continuing economic privation provides an ongoing reminder to North Koreans that Kim’s promises of better times have gone a-glimmering. China, though not inclined to cooperate with the U.S., is uncomfortable with Vladimir Putin’s disconcerting embrace of Kim. The latter has been shifting the dynastic cult to himself from his father and grandfather, presumably to bolster his authority. Rumors of his ill health persist alongside claims that he is preparing his 11-year-old daughter to succeed him in a radically patriarchal society. The nomenklatura — political, economic, and military — may eventually tire of Korea’s version of Louis XVI. Which suggests an allied strategy that emphasizes peace, information, dialogue, and patience. The U.S. and its friends should avoid military confrontation. Weakness may make Pyongyang confrontational and trigger-happy. Nothing is more important than avoiding Korean War II. Promoting arms control and offering to trade some sanctions relief for some nuclear limits might ease tensions. However, the only sure answer to “the North Korea problem” is domestic political change. The regime appears superficially formidable but, like Romania before December 1989, likely is extremely brittle, dependent on endless repression to survive. North Koreans know they have been lied to and younger North Koreans are evidently looking beyond Kim for answers. Breaching the DPRK’s Iron Information Curtain could help promote future political change. Even a move to normal authoritarianism would be an improvement. Diplomatic engagement would give the North the international respect that it craves without sacrificing allied security. An offer of talks and/or recognition could include attention to all issues, including human rights. Individuals, NGOs, and international organizations could be invited to contribute to the dialogue, increasing pressure for change. Finally, Washington and its allies should play the long game. Pyongyang is an extreme, dysfunctional regime even by communist standards. Rather like Romania’s Ceausescus, the royal Kims are a totalitarian caricature. Imagine the crimes required for the United Nations to denounce a member! Friends of the Korean people should continue to publicly challenge and embarrass the Kim regime and its nominal allies and press for peaceful change. Were the human cost not so great, the DPRK could be preserved as a museum exhibiting man’s cruelty to man. Instead, people of goodwill everywhere should advocate for the liberation of those trapped in the world’s only absolute monarchy in communist camouflage. The decade-old judgment of the special UN panel investigating North Korea still reverberates: Systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, its institutions and officials. In many instances, the violations of human rights found by the commission constitute crimes against humanity. These are not mere excesses of the State; they are essential components of a political system that has moved far from the ideals on which it claims to be founded. The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world. That such a regime continues to exist should horrify us all. Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of several books, including Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea. The post North Korea: The World’s Worst Human Rights Black Hole appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Don’t Know Much About History

Democrats’ Pennsylvania Problem

Back in the U.S.S.A.

Kamala Harris and the 'Flashy Thing'

Do People Vote on What They Know or How They Feel?

Let Them Eat Supreme Court Reform

If Not Mentally Fit, Biden Must Go Now