"It's good enough." The post “It’s shit”: The album The Strokes’ Julian Casablancas admitted was rushed first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The Democratic establishment discovered three things about President Biden during his Friday interview with Clinton operative cum ABC anchorman George Stephanopoulos: First, he is utterly delusional about his first term record and his fitness to remain in office. Second, he’s in denial about the dismal polling numbers that portend his defeat by former President Trump in November. Finally, Biden has no intention of voluntarily withdrawing from the race and is pointedly ignoring the frantic entreaties of other elected Democrats, large-dollar donors and the doyens of the commentariat to do so. He has wanted to be President all his life and he likes the job. The predicament the Democrats find themselves in … was caused by their attempt to deceive the voters about the President’s ongoing cognitive decline. Biden is, of course, cognitively unfit to carry out the duties of the presidency. Moreover, a majority of Americans already know it according to numerous surveys — including a CBS News poll conducted at the end of June. This presents a particularly awkward dilemma for the White House press corps because they consciously ignored Biden’s “problem” for well over three years, right up until the wheels came off during his June 27 presidential debate with Donald Trump. Now that his cognitive limitations are undeniable, and may very well cost him the 2024 election, these “journalists” have expressed shock and dismay. But, as veteran reporter Mark Halperin writes at Fox News, they are the people who buried the story: The White House press corps was not gaslit by Biden’s aides … The public has been lied to by its government and its free press. Foreign nations, both friends and foe, know that our president is mentally unfit for office, and that there is no one in charge in the White House. The very foundations of the American system have been replaced by sand and mist, leaving questions about re-election, but also fundamental doubts about our national security and our commander in chief. Meanwhile, the Hill reports that House Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn. became the fifth House Democrat to officially call on Biden to bow out of the presidential race. She joins Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.). In the upper chamber, according a Washington Post report, “Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) is attempting to assemble a group of Democratic senators to ask President Biden to exit the presidential race.” Even more ominous for him is an impending mutiny by large-dollar Democrat donors who are threatening to stop writing checks if Biden refuses to go. One such donor, Damon Lindelof, has called for a “DEMbargo” in Deadline: The checks give us access to power and it is power that is needed to persuade our pitcher to come out of the game, because dammit, even four runs down with the bases loaded and no outs, he still feels like he’s got good stuff … When they text you asking for cash, text back that you’re not giving them a penny and you won’t change your mind until there’s change at the top of the ticket. And when Joe finally leaves the mound, I will stand and applaud. Because he truly pitched a great game. The claim that Biden has “pitched a great game” is eminently debatable, but he has unquestioningly been successful in garnering the support of large-dollar donors until his debate debacle. During the quarter that ended June 30, Biden’s campaign raised $264 million according to AP. That isn’t as much as Trump’s haul of $331 million, but it’s not chicken feed. Since Biden’s interview with Stephanopoulos, however, a number of deep-pocketed donors are joining Lindelof in calling for him to step down. ABC News reports that Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, former Paypal CEO Bill Harris and Los Angeles real estate mogul Rick Caruso are among those who are now reluctant to write checks to Biden. Democrat Delusion But the President will nonetheless be very nearly impossible to dislodge if he refuses to step aside. Disregard the nonsense published in the corporate media concerning the 25th Amendment. In recent days, various pundits on the left and the right have suggested that it offers the Democrats a way to renege on the Faustian bargain they made with Biden in 2020. The silliest of these was written by Jeannie Suk Gersen, a professor at Harvard Law School, in the New Yorker. She writes, “Biden should resign from the Presidency altogether as soon as possible. The Twenty-fifth Amendment says that in the case of the President’s resignation, the Vice-President — Kamala Harris — becomes the President.” If the problem here isn’t obvious, let’s spell it out again — Biden isn’t going to resign voluntarily. Thus, the 25th Amendment is useless in this situation if he is conscious and able to transmit to Congress a “written declaration that no inability exists.” The predicament the Democrats find themselves in as the 2024 election looms was caused by their attempt to deceive the voters about the President’s ongoing cognitive decline. That attempt failed and, combined with inflation and immigration, this will probably be fatal to Biden’s reelection campaign. They made a bargain in 2020. Now it’s time to pay up. READ MORE from David Catron: Biden’s Debate Debacle Disqualifies His Entire Party Will Biden’s Pandering Fool Black Voters Again? Is Biden’s Dementia Just Russian Disinformation? The post The Democrats’ Faustian Bargain With Biden appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The political whirlwind that struck three continents last week suggests the world has had enough. Or rather, the people have. Because today, both America and Europe are so different from what they were a week ago, it may take a literary mind to understand it. Or as the great American writer Walter Kirn tweeted, “For interpreting what’s going on now, give me someone with a BA in English or Comp Lit who possesses a moderate knowledge of drama and theater over a Ph.D. in political science.” As a novelist and screenwriter, challenge accepted. Biden Revealed In the United States, five years of mass hypnosis by the mainstream media ended with a loud snap into reality. Even the most self-deceived liberals saw the President’s illusory clothes dissolve before their very eyes during a debate with his evil predecessor. In place of their vigorous dragonslayer stood a decrepit mindless zombie needing help to get off the stage. For the libs it was the ultimate Movie Moment. And they must have reacted in horror like the Navy officers at Captain Queeg’s (Humphrey Bogart) breakdown in The Caine Mutiny. Across the Pond, the British people have also had enough — of a Conservative Party that denied or ignored everything they overwhelmingly voted it in for. Last week’s leftwing chain reaction was a matter of survival. The mainstream press, knowing the jig was up — and that all their powers couldn’t make their once willing subjects unsee what they’d seen — had one choice. Act shocked, shocked that the “Lincolnian” Joe Biden was a babbling empty shell. Then they let him have it. (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Biden Voters Get the Red Pill) As did their masters, the Democrats, their formerly unassailable shield-wall broken by an irresistible enemy — the truth. They split into two factions last week, those insisting that Biden must go and those defending him, at least until the next phase. For either side will switch to the other as soon as one crosses the point of no return. After losing its protection, the White House has also come down to two opposing forces, family versus staff. Biden’s inner circle — First Lady Macbeth, son Hunter, and Biden sister Valerie Owens — comprehend that someone else must take the fall for the debate disaster. And who better than adviser Anita Dunn and her husband. Red State quotes an NBC source on the inner sanctum turmoil. “Biden family members have discussed whether he should fire senior White House adviser Anita Dunn and her husband, Bob Bauer, who is Biden’s personal lawyer, two people familiar with the matter said.” Jill Biden will sacrifice anyone and anything to remain in power, including her husband’s health and any shred of dignity. Or as one informed source told NBC while heeding the Walter Kirn Principle, “It’s Shakespearean.” So will be the tragic ending for Joe Biden. A lifelong mediocrity whom a web of leftist lies, corruption, pathological hatred for his opponent, and a convenient pandemic boosted into the White House after forty years of failing. He will retain just enough cognizance to know deep down, all bluster to the contrary, that he was the worst President in modern history. While the previous bearer of that title still lives. And understands enough to gladly bequeath it. It’s Not Just Biden Across the Pond, the British people have also had enough — of a Conservative Party that denied or ignored everything they overwhelmingly voted it in for. They knew the Labour Party was a disaster that will accelerate the downfall of their beloved country. And they deliberately let it happen last Thursday, bringing down their preferred party after 14 years in power. Nobody can explain this dichotomy any better than the brilliant Douglas Murray, as he did a month ago on Sky News Australia. Murray eloquently cited the extraordinary failure of the Conservative Party under now five Prime Ministers to do what the public has asked them to do. For instance, David Cameron came in in 2020 promising to bring net migration down from the hundreds of thousands each year to tens of thousands. And the latest figure is almost a million. So, the British public from disgust at the Conservative Party and its treachery and failure of any attempt to keep its mandate is going to be voted out. And in the British system there’s only one way to do that, which is to be voting in Labour. Which they did last week. The lesson is clear for America. Be slightly to the right of the Left, and you won’t stop the Left. Heroic Argentine president Javier Milei explained this far more colorfully in a recent interview. “You can’t give sh_t leftists a single millimeter,” said Milei. “All the collectivists, all those who put out these ideas … Because they are sh_t. If you think differently from them, they will liquidate you. That’s the point. That’s why you can’t give sh_t leftists a single millimeter. If you give them a millimeter they will use it to destroy you. You don’t negotiate with leftists. You don’t negotiate with sh_t because they will terminate you.” Milei’s ideological compadre, El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele Ortez, isn’t waiting for the Left to make its move. He just ordered the demolition of all Communist symbols and statues. (READ MORE: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) And below the English Channel, the Continent is turning right. Last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Mihály Orbán launched a new conservative international alliance, “Patriots for Europe,” seeking to become the largest right-wing group in the European Parliament. It’s already succeeding. The dominant Portuguese rightist party, Chega, just joined the PFE. So did the Dutch and Spanish rightist parties. Several other countries’ leading parties are circling the group. Which is good for Trump. After Biden shuffles out of the White House for the last time, probably before January 2025, Trump is going to have some serious international allies. The post The Curtains Are Drawn on Biden and Europe’s Rulers appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

By now you’ve read dozens of analyses of President Biden’s disastrous debate performance against former president Trump. Old, slow Joe is still defending himself against any demands that he drop out of the race but even the White House is now telling people that the Democratic Party’s future rests with Kamala Harris. Biden has severely damaged our military by forcing it to … adopt his woke theories from DEI to transgender people serving on active duty. We hope that is true because it’s politically tantamount to a suicide note. But as funny as that notion is, the joke is on us. Biden is a disaster, a danger to our national security. Kammy — and every other Democrat — would be no different from Joe because they would be controlled by the same people and have the same agenda. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden Blackmails Israel) The truth of the matter is that Joe has never been very smart. Now he’s both unintelligent and senile. And his condition is worsening. In February, Biden told a crowd about his 2021 meeting with French President Mitterrand (who died in 1996). Late last week, he told a radio interviewer that he was, “the first black woman to serve with a black president,” and that he was the first president “that got elected statewide in Delaware when I was a kid.” Remember Hillary’s 2008 political ad about the 3:00 a.m. phone call? It’s point was to show that she was more capable of dealing with political crises than Obama. No need to worry about Joe. He told a group of state governors that he needs more rest, so he won’t schedule any events after 8:00 p.m. There won’t be any need to wake him up for a 3:00 a.m. crisis phone call. At least until there is a crisis. In a Juneteenth appearance, Biden seemed frozen despite the motion among the people around him. His eyes reportedly were focused on some distant object and his arms hung limply by his sides. A Parkinson’s Disease specialist has reportedly met with Biden’s White House physician nine times in past months. Whatever Joe’s condition may be, he’s mentally unfit to serve as president. You might be misled to believe the liberal press is apparently done siding with Joe. Some are joining in a putsch to force him out but whether or not his candidacy ends, they’ll go hard against Trump ever after. The hyper-liberal Washington Post wrote a fictional speech in which Joe ended his campaign. More importantly, the liberal British newspaper, The Economist, pictured an old person’s walker with the presidential seal dangling from it. The editorial called on Biden to resign his campaign. Part of The Economist editorial said, “Representing America abroad, Mr. Biden will project decrepitude — to the delight of China and Russia and the dismay of America’s allies.” And so he is doing right now. Add to that the delight of Iran, which Biden has relentlessly appeased, and the comfort of North Korea. Both the Norks and the Chinese are supplying arms and ammunition to help Putin’s war against Ukraine. Joe Biden’s presidency has been a national security disaster and his candidacy for a second term is a clear and present danger. We have had at least seven million illegal aliens enter the U.S. plus about two million more “gotaways,” those who evaded the Border Patrol entirely. As FBI director Christopher Wray has been warning for months, all the red lights are blinking, signaling that there will be a terrorist attack inside the U.S. — a major one — very soon. The illegals and “gotaways” comprise an enormous threat that we have little or no way to defend against. Biden has appeased Iran from the outset of his administration. He has wanted a new nuclear weapons agreement with the ayatollahs ever since Trump cancelled Obama’s agreement in 2018. In doing so, Biden has relentlessly pressured Israel to make peace with Hamas (an Iranian proxy) in the Gaza war and is now pressuring Israel to not expand the war against Hizballah in Lebanon — Iran’s larger proxy force — despite the fact that it is Hizballah which is firing missiles at Israeli civilians. He clearly doesn’t understand that, to paraphrase the late Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, you can’t make peace with someone who has come to kill you. (READ MORE: Biden’s Random Bombings) From the beginning of Russia’s war on Ukraine in February 2022, Biden has been satisfied with a stalemate fearing, above all, escalation. He has thus played into Russian President Putin’s hand. In effect, Biden has been attempting — without effect — to appease Putin. From the beginning of that war, which has destroyed much of Ukraine, Biden blocked Polish efforts to supply the battered Ukrainian forces with MiG-29s, which Ukraine’s pilots have been flying for decades. Instead, Ukraine is going to be supplied with a number of F-16s later this summer. Ukrainian pilots have been training with the F-16s for months. Their training has been delayed by the language barrier and the pilots’ unfamiliarity with the aircraft. As readers of this column know, Biden has severely damaged our military by forcing it to accept and adopt his woke theories from DEI to transgender people serving on active duty. One of the many reasons our military has remained effective is that it was unified in its purpose. Thanks to Biden’s wokeness, it is no longer. American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines used to be able to take pride in being a part of something larger than themselves. They can no longer. Wokeness emphasizes divisiveness, that people are different and — as DEI teaches — each should have his or her or his/her — own values and expectations for military service. They are told this constantly by instructors and what passes for leaders in today’s armed forces. If that were not enough — and it’s far too much — the U.S. has been purchasing the fanciest, most expensive military equipment available, some of which — like the F-35 — has grown in cost to $2 trillion for that single weapon system. And the F-35 has a combat availability rate that is vastly less than it has to be. Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since World War II. Yet our enemies, such as the Chinese, have fleets far larger and are building drone aircraft and both sea and undersea drones capable of destroying our expensive weaponry. There’s a lot more to be said, but I have to end on this note. It will take probably twenty years to undo the damage Biden and his minions have done to our national security. Our enemies won’t allow us the time to do it. Joe Biden is unfit to serve as president now or in the future. If he continues his candidacy — or if some like-minded Dem replaces him — we are and will be in more danger than at any time since the 1930s. The post Biden’s Conspicuous Decline is a Joke — On Us appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Last year, ChatGPT aced the bar exam. We’re also told that pretty soon, the program will have a “Ph.D.” level of intelligence. No one is precisely sure what that means, or whether it’s even intended as a compliment. (Are we talking a Ph.D. in physics or a Ph.D. in “Education Leadership”?) AI can do all the driving for you. The writing for you. The chatting for you. The dating for you. The shopping for you. The therapy for you. The tutoring for you. And on and on it goes. In each of these potential avenues of the conquest of artificial intelligence (AI), computers and human beings are laid out side by side and evaluated by their abilities. The question we’re generally left asking is: who (or what) can do it better? And is this new technology going to render human activity irrelevant?  It would be bizarre if we started comparing ourselves with cars, or iPhones, or an irrigation system. My personal interest in AI budded in late 2022 when ChatGPT arrived on the scene and promptly became every college kid’s best friend. Then Villanova University was caught using it to send a  consoling letter about a school shooting at Michigan State. Employers sighed in relief once they realized they could dismiss their uncomfortable qualms about firing people directly. “ChatGPT, please write a nice but firm termination email to John Doe.” And of course, the critiques, including from my own pen, started to flow. Actually, no, many declared: ChatGPT isn’t perfect, gets citations wrong, makes stuff up, can’t exactly do math, and makes it so Edward Scissorhands seems like a star model in the phalange department. AI coated the whole internet with a dross of fakery that seemed to land greenly in the gut, like a bad McDonald’s burger that just doesn’t taste as good as the advertisement. (READ MORE: Now We’ve Got Proof that Wikipedia is Biased) AI Is Not Human But we’re making a mistake comparing AI with human intelligence to begin with. It’s like comparing tugboats with narwhals. Yes, the boat might be able to chug a bit longer or sail in the same waters as the fish, but does that mean they suddenly belong in the same category? So, they both have “fins.” Does that mean they’re cousins now?  It’s almost like we’re so tempted to compare ourselves with these artificial “minds” because culturally, we’ve come to see human beings as little more than advanced computers. We input data from childhood, learn how to compute it, and then generate our own formulations of the world when we’re ready.  Roger Scruton, the late British philosopher, wrote about this problem for The Times back in 1985, when AI was brewing in the technological cauldron but hadn’t yet entered the world as it has today. Scruton was critiquing the philosopher John Searle in the essay, noting how even though human beings may have an understanding that AI lacks, that doesn’t address what human beings are for in the first place. He writes,  Even if we are, as he [Searle] says, distinct from every artificial intellect, why should this matter to us? Is this the sign that we are free, that our lives have purpose and value, that death has lost its sting? Or is it just a weird addition to the sum of human misery: that we are not only, like the rest of nature, purposeless, but also cursed with the capacity to know how purposeless we are? Without a broader vision of who we really are as human beings, distinguishing ourselves from AI isn’t enough.  For the record, I think it’s good that we’re pointing out the uniquely human capacities like imagination, emotion, and creativity that AI can’t replicate. But we shouldn’t stop there. And we shouldn’t stop there because we human beings aren’t primarily computational machines that do certain things better than other members of the animal and robotic kingdoms. We are relational beings who are to be valued not by our input and output but by our intrinsic dignity, as personal subjects who are able to know and be known by others. I think that’s what Scruton was after. Without a proper understanding of human personhood and a sense of meaning in life, all these distinctions lose their weight. (READ MORE: The Developing World (Still) Needs Golden Rice) It would be bizarre if we started comparing ourselves with cars, or iPhones, or an irrigation system. So, neither should we compare ourselves with computer codes. It really is unbefitting for the species once commonly regarded as an image of the Divine, even for those who insist we’re nothing more than data dust. The Western tradition holds that we are souls, not just impressive brains that can somehow self-reflect. Trying to code the mystery out of the human soul has maddened many a materialist. Don’t sell yourself short.  The post We’re Missing the Plot When It Comes to AI appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

You Never Know — A Memoir By Tom Selleck with Ellis Henican (DEYST, 343 pages, $30) In which, happily, Tom Selleck does not tell all. Selleck rarely talks politics … and when he does he claims to be more libertarian than either Republican or Democrat. I know what you’re thinking. You Never Know is just another one of those first-person memoirs of the stars where the subject gilds his/her own lily, settles scores with others, drops names, virtue signals, and tells things that shouldn’t be told, whether or not they happen to be true. Well, mostly it isn’t. (READ MORE from Larry Thornberry: The Sleepy Dormouse at 1600 Grilled) I want to make it clear right off that I don’t usually concern myself with the stars, temporal or celestial. But this is Tom Selleck. Not your off-the-rack Hollywood weenie by a long shot. Had the subject been George Clooney I would not have abused the reading time.       Selleck being a true gent, and existing outside of the progressive freak bubble that Hollywood has become, does not kiss and tell. He never virtue signals. He’s generous in his praise of actors and other colleagues who’ve added value to his shows and movies, and is not that hard on those who haven’t. While there are names — Carol Burnett, Frank Sinatra, Mae West, Leonard Nimoy, just to cite four — these, and others, are people he’s worked with over the course of a long and successful career on both the small and large screens, and so don’t really count as name-dropping. You Never Know is a well written account of this accidental career that began in the mid-1960s in the obscurity of an occasional television commercial and uncredited bit-parts in movies. By steps, “laying bricks” Selleck calls it, the career blossomed to include the long-running, hit TV shows Magnum  and Blue Bloods as well as a host of popular feature films. The steps were never assured, thus the book’s title. Author Ellis Henican tells the story in the first person and in the conversational, one-on-one tone that Selleck might use if he were talking to a friend. His rendering projects the same kind of humor, warmth, and generosity that Selleck projects on the screen. Selleck Sans Politics The book shows readers many of the nuts, bolts, and circuitry of Hollywood production, how TV shows and movies make it, or don’t make it from the pitch to the screen. Money, egos, and timing play at least as big a role as talent or story. Timing accounts for why Selleck had to turn down the role of Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark when it was offered to him by Stephen Spielberg. Selleck was contractually committed to Magnum, P.I., the show which jump-started his career. Ironically, it’s exactly in the area that accounts for Selleck’s claim to the attention of conservative TAS readers that the book disappoints. Selleck rarely talks politics publicly, of the electoral or cultural kind, and when he does he claims to be more libertarian than either Republican or Democrat. But the characters he plays tend to hold traditional values. We see this in Magnum, which centers on three Viet Nam vets, all dealing with their wartime experiences, but they’re clearly patriots. So is NYPD Commissioner Frank Reagan and his multi-generational clan of Reagan cops in the long-running and popular Blue Bloods, where dedication to duty and the importance of family are central. We also see American foundational values in some of Selleck’s excellent westerns, my favorite of which is Monte Walsh. (READ MORE: Yakima Canutt: The Little-Known but Great American Stuntman) No revelation that this is not where the center of gravity of Hollywood is now, with woke actors, directors, and other Tinsel Town tinhorns preaching the latest progressive pieties to their ever dwindling audiences. Because he’s not one of the current in-crowd, Selleck chooses to avoid the Hollywood party circuit. He lives on an avacodo farm in Ventura County, 60 miles north of Los Angeles, with his wife of almost 40 years, actor and dancer Jilly Mack. (This last is no doubt a disappointment to millions of women who would love to book some time with him, handsome dog that he is even while looking down the barrel of 80.) Reading the book I would have liked to have learned more about what it’s like to be the cultural odd-man-out in a one-industry town that polices the opinions of its own. Fortunately, Selleck became a bankable star before his distinctly non-leftish approach to life became grounds for career cancellation. He’s just too good for cash-flow to cast into outer darkness. I’m sure Selleck has some pear-shaped thoughts on this, and on how Hollywood has become a cultural force for the worse daffiness out of the cultural left. But we get none of this in You Never Know. Nonetheless, Selleck’s story is entertaining and edifying. Those looking for a good weekend read, and perhaps a temporary escape from the catastrophe or our current politics, could do a lot worse than You Never Know.  The post Selleck Is a Star Unlike the Others appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The French at Wimbledon Were you to ask anyone at SW 19 when was the last time a Frenchman won the All-England Championships at Wimbledon, classiest tournament in tennis, you would get a blank stare.  Without a copy of Bud Collins’ classic History of Tennis at hand, I am confident in asserting it has not happened since before World War II, unless you count the ladies, which of course you must. Two classy young ladies, Amelie Mauresno and Marion Bartoli won here in the oughts and ‘teens of this century. [T]he left-wing La France Insoumise (“France Unbowed”) party led by Jean-Luc Melenchon explicitly calls for a “refounding” of France and its regime. The waterfront Brooklyn neighborhood of Dumbo organized a virtual Wimbledon, with giant screen and strawberries and cream, and all the swells are dressed in fine flannels and summer dresses, just as they ought.  A shame the Tories were crushed by the Socialists in parliamentary elections a week ago, but England is England and as Winston Churchill said after losing an election — after winning the war! — “Trust the people.” (READ MORE from Roger Kaplan: Elections in France Could Bring Extremists to Power) Jimmy Connors stood up the Queen of England at Wimbledon one time, not nice, but the All-England Club would not offer a membership to Fred Perry, England’s greatest tennis player in his time, because he was not a public school boy, not nice either. But you can recall Churchill’s words and figure things will work out in their own good time. And this includes Frenchmen winning the Championships. On Sunday (today) Ugo Humbert gave Spanish defending champion Carlos Alcaraz a run for his money in the round of 16, and there are two 20-year olds going into the second week,  Arthur Fils and Giovanni Mpetshi-Perricard, the latter with the biggest serve since America’s John Isner, 135 mph average. As I am neither there nor in Dumbo, it will merit a trip to a local sports bar when they play their matches tomorrow. Not to get ethnic about it, but in view of the shock Tory loss last week, you cannot but notice that Fils and Mpetshi-Perricard happen to be products of France’s quite generous but now controversial immigration policies.  This, by the way, is not, or should not, be newsworthy. The last Frenchman to win on their own home court, at Roland Garros in 1983, was Yannick Noah (he now captains France’s Davis Cup team), and two of the previous cohort’s greats are Jo Tsonga and Gael Monfils (still here, lost in second round), who are regularly listed in the category of “best players to not have won a Slam.” The truth is, this is secondary to something else: France’s player development system, which is known to spot talent early in the local clubs (or “federations”) and send them for graduate studies at the national federation. This is why they consistently produced deep benches in both singles and doubles. France Is Unhappy But if sports programs, which of necessity function on meritocratic principles, produce world class athletes, other institutions in France are by all accounts not doing all they should. Voters are unhappy, feel the leaders of the traditional governing parties pay no attention to their needs and anxieties, which include failing public schools, spikes in crime, a sense of the country being adrift and lacking confidence in its identity, its place in the world, its destiny. Consequently, votes are cast for what President Emmanuel Macron has branded an “extremist”  party, whose aims and programs threaten the Republic. It might even be “fascist.” A snap election for the National Assembly on Sunday focused on how to “stop fascism.” And President Macron, in his wisdom, thought the best way to do this — and presumably keep his lease on the Elysee Palace for at least a while — was to join forces with another party, which only two weeks ago he had also branded as extremist and a threat to the Republic. As Irwin Shaw, who lived in France for some years, used to say, “Go figure.” For if there are fascists in France, and indeed at the gates of power, it is not at all clear they are the ones identified as such by the media and the leftist coalitions that were hastily formed to stop them, namely the Rassemblement National (National Rally). This party for years has promoted a nationalist, France-first platform, including tighter controls on immigration, though by no means a rejection of immigrants who choose France, its laws and customs.  A case can be made that the economic and financial premises of the RN’s program are incoherent and unsustainable. But in itself, this is not fascist; moreover, the party has indicated it is anything but inflexible on budgetary questions, or on contentious issues such as control of the common European currency (the euro), the executive power of the EU itself, and participation in NATO. On the other side, the left-wing La France Insoumise (“France Unbowed”) party led by Jean-Luc Melenchon explicitly calls for a “refounding” of France and its regime, on the basis of the an alliance with the Islamists who have profited from French democracy to transmit to a growing Muslim population an attitude of outright hostility to France.  The resulting “Islamo-leftism” which is the driving force of the left-wing electoral coalition called the “New Popular Front,” rode the crest of hysteria regarding the National right “fascists” in the balloting on Sunday and, evidently, they may emerge with a plurality in the Assembly.  To form a majority, however, they will have to bully Macron’s centrists into letting them dominate a coalition government.  Macron having, in fact, made electoral pacts with the New Popular Front on the principle of “stopping fascism,” this is precisely what may happen. (READ MORE: Woodrow Wilson: A Madman, or Merely Misunderstood?) Macron’s Mephistophelian pact legitimizes anti-Semitism, for the Melenchon-Islamist alliance makes no secret of its support for Hamas with its view that Israel is due for extermination. The irony here is that Marine Le Pen and her nationaux have been the staunchest supporters of Israel, whom they see as heirs of the Frankish armies that stopped a Muslim takeover of France at the Battle of Tours. They say sports builds character; Macron, at one time a fairly avid tennis player, made an electoral pact which if anything shows a deficiency in judgement, perhaps in character as well. Whereas the National right has made it clear it would respect his executive prerogatives, the Melenchonistes are already calling for his resignation. But then, French politics have been treacherous for as long as anyone remembers, and in this game the match is not necessarily over when the last point is called. The post French Racquets appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I heard Bible stories at Sunday school. Especially at the early grades, with Mrs. Goldstein and Mrs. Berkowitz, both of whom were great storytellers. Nothing is more important than telling stories. Douglas clearly implies that opposition to religion is itself sectarian and is not entitled to preferential support from the government. Real school, public school, began each day with the reading of a Psalm and a prayer that contained no references to any clearly anti-Jewish doctrine, though it came from Christian sources. Then we recited the Pledge of Allegiance. But there was no Bible study. That wasn’t the same sort of thing as science, math, English, and social studies. That was the message I got. The stories were now from American and English literature, first the special stuff written for schoolkids, then from real books. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Welcome to Venezuela, America) That changed at ninth grade when I went to a private Quaker school not too far from where I lived in southeastern Pennsylvania. Aside from the science, math, English, and history (no social studies there), religion was on the agenda: there were regular Quaker meetings for worship and a regular weekly religion class. The Friends had a history of religious tolerance, so I was not treated in any lesser way for not being a professing Friend. Some of the religion teachers were mediocre; one had some real problems that manifested outside of class; and one was really smart, funny, and interesting, an ex-Episcopal priest. That last was one of the better classes in a high school that gave me many high-quality classes. I am in touch with some of my Class of 1969 classmates on Facebook. I have fond memories of them, and our exchanges are almost exclusively friendly. Many have headed in a different political direction than I have, but mostly, differences have not led to resentment or cancelation. Friendship, blessedly, seems to trump politics at least here. But remembering the important religious component of our education, I was just a little surprised to read what felt like boilerplate talking-point response to recent developments in public education. For just recently, Louisiana passed a bill requiring a poster of the Ten Commandments to be posted in all state classrooms, and Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction, mandated Bible study in Sooner public schools from grades 5 though 12. My friends’ posted objections to this are not nuanced. These posts take it for granted that Bible study must necessarily be a religious act that, as such, cannot be endorsed by the government under the First Amendment. In this age of exaggeration and catastrophizing, this is portrayed as part of the overthrow of democracy that has been a major left theme this go-around. These arguments and their like work by premising a Manichean duality that is endemic to woke thinking. It is a stark battle against an evil so complete that even to listen to the other side’s argument makes one as suspect as wearing a Trotsky for Premier button at the Moscow Show Trials. Anything other than wholehearted affirmation of the woke position is evidence of fundamental evil. And for today’s wokeists and those who unreflectively support them, religion is fundamentally evil, with the exception of the solipsisms of the Lawn Sign Catechism and, apparently, the Teheran mullahs’ brand of Islam. I remember when public school Bible readings and school prayer were stopped. We had great discussions in my public school’s social studies classes about the landmark Supreme Court decision that declared that mandated Bible reading and prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. My teacher was good — we went into deep discussion about what made it a debate, to understand the very real ideas that motivated law-abiding citizens on both sides of the question. So, in the spirit of those good discussions from my youth, I went back to look at the Abington v. Schempp opinion banning Bible reading as well as the earlier landmark Zorach v. Clauson case that upheld New York’s released time program for religious instruction. As I had remembered from decades ago, the Abington decision left plenty of room for study of religious texts. It forbade directly the devotional act of a daily Bible reading which was not treated as academic material — no questions, no discussions, no papers, no marks. But as for study, Justice William Brennan, concurring with the majority, wrote: The holding of the Court today plainly does not foreclose teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history. Indeed, whether or not the Bible is involved, it would be impossible to teach meaningfully many subjects in the social sciences or the humanities without some mention of religion. To what extent, and at what points in the curriculum, religious materials should be cited are matters which the courts ought to entrust very largely to the experienced officials who superintend our nation’s public schools. The last sentence sounds somewhat naïve today, when the trust our institutions enjoyed 80 years ago has been largely squandered. Here, my friends dismiss the bona fides of the officials in Louisiana and Oklahoma without considering the prominent place that the very liberal Justice Brennan carved out for study of religion and religious texts. I would admit straight up that the Bible could be taught in a way that indicates governmental support of one particular religion. But I differ — and Justice Brennan differs — with the the argument that it is impossible to teach Bible in a way that one teaches great literature. Reading great books in English class was what I liked the best in high school. The teachers were exhilarating, the texts were powerful, and the discussions required careful reading and consideration, not ideological profession. All the texts had something to say and we weren’t required to agree with any of them. But we had to understand the author and the power of his or her art and argument and we had to listen to each other with respect and make our criticism constructive. (READ MORE: All Are Bound by the Law) That was exactly what had made Mr. Hammer’s religion class fantastic, and what works in any discussion of serious matters. These are skills we need to have in a constitutional democracy; our tendency to want only affirmation on the one hand and to critique destructively on the other are germs in the plague of civilizational decay. The issue of real Bible study ought not to be an issue that divides left and right. The very, very progressive Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the majority opinion in Zorach: [We do not] find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. What is stunningly right here is that Douglas clearly implies that opposition to religion is itself sectarian and is not entitled to preferential support from the government. The government cannot take a stance hostile to religion, as that itself is a sectarian claim to ultimate meaning. In today’s discussion, the stance of Douglas and Brennan, both supporters of banning devotional Bible reading in school put to shame the wokeists’ sectarian thoroughgoing rejection of traditional American religion. The very opinions by which they establish their disestablishmentarian views judiciously defends a proper place for religion. They tell us that we dare not reduce the debate over the highest of things, the superordinate principles of life, to the level of a squabble between two-year-olds. Don’t Ban the Bible The solution is not to ban the study of the most influential book in human history, or at least the book on anyone’s short list of the most important. It should be, rather, to know it and understand it in the same way that schools are capable of teaching any important and influential book, fully respecting all well-considered opinions. It’s a terrible sign in any age when we lose the words to share our insights. It’s all the worse when those words are about the most important of things, which this surely is to all involved. Let’s bring ourselves together by teaching how American democracy can still bring us all together in pursuit of the truth, in our schools and in our homes and houses of worship, in blessed freedom. The post Bible Stories in School appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is out with On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service, but even before the new book, ABC’s Jonathan Karl had a question. “I have to ask you about all this talk about — about Biden’s health,” Karl said. “You’ve worked with seven presidents. You know what the job entails. Why would someone in their 80s want to do another four years of this?” Dr. Fauci seemed to be taken off guard. Once again, political considerations blocked Dr. Fauci’s medical judgement. “You know, I think it’s just an individual choice, and you really can’t generalize,” Fauci said. “You have to take each individual person, you know, how they feel, what they feel they can do, you know, what their passion is, what their energy is. Those are the kind of things.” (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: K-12 Parents Need Same Choices as College Athletes) Karl then wondered, “were you surprised? I mean, you worked with him. You worked closely with him … Were you surprised by what you saw in that debate?” “Well, you know,” Fauci responded. “I don’t want to comment on anything that would have any political implications. You know me, over many years. But the one thing I can say and feel comfortable about is I have dealt with President Biden, and in my dealings with him, it’s been really very positive. He asks probing questions. He’s right on point on things. So my personal experience has been quite positive with him.” Dr. Fauci Politician Dr. Fauci’s concerns about “political implications” overrode the medical implications. That recalled an episode in 2021, when Dr. Fauci was the government’s chief spokesman on the Covid pandemic. A Jan. 30 report by New York Attorney General Letitia James revealed that thousands more nursing home residents may have died from Covid than New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had publicly acknowledged. On Feb. 15, Gov. Cuomo defended his pandemic response and the next day Dr. Fauci appeared on CNN with Jim Sciutto. Gov. Cuomo had argued that New York was following federal guidelines when he ordered long-term care facilities to accept patients returning from hospitals, and the CNN host wondered if Dr. Fauci could clarify that claim. “You know, Jim, I can’t,” Fauci responded. “I mean, excuse me. I really am — I’m honestly not trying to erase your question, but I’m not really sure of all the details of that, and I think if I, if you make a statement, it might be wrong or taken out of context. So, I prefer not to comment on that.” In reality, Fauci had already clarified the details. In July of 2020, Dr. Fauci told reporters that unlike other states, New York responded “properly” and “correctly” to the pandemic. For his part, Gov. Cuomo said, “If you think there was a mistake, then go talk to the federal government. It’s not about pointing fingers or blame, this became a political football.” Once again, political considerations blocked Dr. Fauci’s medical judgement, and that should come as no surprise. If he ever actually practiced medicine it was only for a short time. Dr. Fauci Tenured Bureaucrat In 1966, Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree from Cornell but in 1968 he took a job with the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fauci’s bio showed no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, but in 1984 he became head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), believed that Fauci “should not be in a position like he’s in.” Dr. Fauci declined the offer of President George W. Bush to head the National Institutes of Health, which would have imposed a limited term. As NIAID boss, Dr. Fauci controlled public health policy and spending on medical research, a huge concentration of power. In effect, Dr. Fauci’s MD functioned as an Ed.D., basically a bureaucratic credential. A ballpark figure for the number of patients Dr. Fauci treated during the pandemic is zero, and his reluctance to render a post-debate medical opinion on Joe Biden was entirely political. A government bureaucrat for more than 50 years, Dr. Anthony Fauci wielded executive-level power without ever having to face the voters. The task of Congress is to prevent that brand of white coat supremacy from happening again, and this is not a difficult matter. (READ MORE: Fauci and His Minions Are Still in Control) The NIAID and NIH directors should be limited to a single four-year term. No single person should control public health policy and medical research spending. All NIAID and NIH grants should be revealed online in real-time and in downloadable form. NIH and NIAID directors must be held accountable for all actions in office. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post Dr. Fauci: Unaccountable Power-Laden Bureaucrat appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from USAWatchdog: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/