Sloppy Words, Sloppy Thoughts, and Modern Politics

/0 Comments/in , /by

“All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.” So wrote George Orwell seventy years ago in his still-timely essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

“When the general atmosphere is bad,” he went on, “language must suffer.” And so it has.

We discussed the essay in the recent All-School Seminar here at Wyoming Catholic College and so it was fresh in my mind as I watched Monday’s presidential debate.

In the essay, Orwell addressed two problems. The first is the downward spiral of sloppy writing and sloppy thinking reinforcing each other. The English language, he said, “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

His evidence for this includes:

Metaphors that have lost any evocative power. (Remember Al Gore’s eminently forgettable “Bridge to the future”?)

Hackneyed phrases snapped together like Legos to save the writer the trouble of thinking clearly and choosing appropriate nouns and verbs as in Hillary Clinton opening statement Monday night: “The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we’ll build together.” No doubt.

Pretentious diction: words that “dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments.” As relentlessly partisan Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne commented on the debate, “Trump has campaigned as a populist paladin of the working class. But the Trump that Clinton described was a plutocrat who walked away from debts and obligations to his own employees.”

Meaningless words. To those who can’t resist comparing Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler, Orwell wrote the year after World War II ended, “Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”

“The attraction of this way of writing,” Orwell commented, “is that it’s easy.” And that is a perfect match for sloppy thinking, which is also easy.

Orwell didn’t stop with criticizing inept writing. His concern included those who use sloppy language to express sloppy ideas in order to deceive. “Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness.” Again, refer to Monday’s “Debate of the Century.”

As Cherie Harder, president of The Trinity Forum recently commented on the essay, confusion in our language and thinking “in turn provides fertile ground for the growth of would-be strong men, who offer glib answers, easy scapegoats, and tough talk to reassure and make sense of the world for those muddled in their thinking. Orwell offers simple, straightforward suggestions for sharpening and refining one’s thinking and writing — and holds out hope that doing so makes possible a more free and flourishing society.”

That last part is critical we are not facing a lost cause. Orwell insisted that we can revive clear language and with it clear thinking if we set our minds to do it.

Don’t expect the politicians and talking heads to help. The change, if it comes at all, will come from us. To that end he included six questions and six rules for good, clear, thoughtful writing. Put off writing, he wrote, until you think the issue through. “Afterwards one can choose — not simply accept — the phrases that will best convey the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one’s words are likely to make on another person.”

To put it another way, Orwell urged his readers to think and write deliberately while cutting through the weeds that obscure the meaning — or lack of meaning — in our political discourse.

As Cherie Harder notes, “In the midst of a presidential campaign characterized by hackneyed insults, obvious falsehoods, and invective, and against a popular entertainment culture that grabs eyeballs with violence and spectacle, a movement to cultivate precision, clarity, truth and beauty in our use of language would be truly counter-cultural — and wonderfully appealing.”

She and I both recommend Orwell’s essay as a good beginning and, while you can grab an online copy, if you order The Trinity Forum’s edition you get the added benefit of an introduction by columnist and scholar Peter Wehner.

Words and thoughts fell on hard times years ago. Those seeking to improve the state of our literary and intellectual life are, for the most part, Christians — the people devoted to both the Incarnate Word and the written Word. We can succeed, but it will take each of us doing our part. (For more from the author of “Sloppy Words, Sloppy Thoughts, and Modern Politics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Creating ‘Three-Parent’ Babies Won’t Cure Anyone

/0 Comments/in , /by

Jones comes to the doctor and says, “Doc, I’m suffering from cancer.” Doc says, “No problem. Got the cure right here.” Doc pulls out a gun and shoots Jones in the cranium. Doc buzzes the intercom and says, “Nurse, send in Smith.” Smith comes in and Doc says, “You’re now Jones, and you’re cured.”

This make sense?

It ought to. Because this joke relies on the same logic touted by those who have created the first “three-parent” baby. These (mad?) scientists say, in effect, that by “discarding” one sick baby and replacing it with another healthy baby, they have “cured” the first. Or they say that by preventing the birth of a potentially sick first baby, and allowing the birth of a potentially healthy second baby, they have “treated” the first.

Make sense yet? No? Then we need to understand what a “three-parent” baby is.

Making Babies

The traditional scientific formula for making a baby is one dad plus one mom, or one sperm plus one egg. After insemination, two “protonuclei” form inside the mother’s egg. One of these blobs contains the father’s DNA, and one the mother’s. Swimming around these protonuclei is the mother’s mitochondrial DNA (mDNA). A short time after, the protonuclei and mDNA mix, the egg begins to cleave and away we go. The cells split and differentiate and, if all goes well, they emerge into the world, live three score and ten or so, then die. (Birth is an intermediate step after conception in this “process”.)

Under the Mary-Shellyesque technique called pronuclear transfer, two separate babies are created using two different sperm (from the same father) and two different eggs (from two women). The female protonuclei from both eggs are removed. The donor’s female protonucleus is ash-canned but her egg is kept, into which is inserted the mother’s female protonucleus. What remains in the donor’s egg is her mDNA. Hence one life is killed (at least one, since the procedure is imperfect), and a new one created with DNA from one father and two women.

A second way of doing this, and the one making headlines, is maternal spindal transfer. Before any egg is inseminated, the nuclear DNA, but not the mDNA, from a mother’s and a donor’s eggs are removed, and the mother’s nuclear DNA is inserted into the donor’s egg, which retains the donor’s mDNA. This hybrid egg is then artificially inseminated with the father’s sperm. If the resultant embryo lives, it’s inserted into the mother and the birth progresses as usual.

There are other formulations, but all end in the same position: a fertilized egg with the father’s DNA, the mother’s nuclear DNA, and a donor’s mDNA. A “three-parent” baby. Of course, the processes described are not as “clean” as they appear: errors in holding back or transferring mDNA happen.

Since all this is iffy technology, the inseminations don’t always work. In the case of this new child, according to New Scientist five separate embryos (lives) were created, “only one of which developed normally. This embryo was implanted in the mother and the child was born nine months later.” The others died. Not a good ratio, that.

When a “Cure” is Not a Cure

Why do this at all? Because there are some heritable diseases associated with mDNA. In this case, the mother had Leigh syndrome, “a fatal disorder that affects the developing nervous system” and which could be transmitted in her mDNA. Indeed, the mother has already had two children who had subsequently died from this disease. The parents wanted a child not susceptible to this syndrome, and so turned to these new technologies.

The doctor who led the team, John Zhang, of the New Hope Fertility Clinic in New York, did the procedure in Mexico where, he said, “there are no rules.” This lack of rules brings us back to the bitter joke we started with. In justifying his procedure, Zhang said, “To save lives is the ethical thing to do.” Yet Smith replaces Jones: Smith is not Jones cured.

No lives were saved by Zhang. No lives will be saved. No lives can be saved.

What happens is that some lives are prevented, while some are ended to facilitate the birth of others. No diseases are “cured.” A cure is when a person with a disease has that disease removed. In “three-parent” child-making, a person who might get a disease is either prevented from being conceived, or conceived then killed.

The hubris of Zhang and others astonishes. Any language of “curing” or “treating” diseases or of “saving” lives here is nothing but propaganda. What these scientists are doing is pure genetic engineering with the goal of creating supposedly superior beings. They are superior in the sense that they are less likely to contract certain diseases compared with others who would be born in their place. Genetic engineering won’t stop at health. There are already discussions of designing “super-intelligent” people, or giving children a strong “predisposition to musicality“, or producing other traits chosen by fashionable parents.

The Curse of Over-Certainty

As we ponder the obvious legal and ethical difficulties of having three “parents,” which are too large to go into here, we should be appalled by these scientists’ callousness. In their eagerness to make headlines and break taboos, they never stopped to think of these children’s welfare, or that of their potential descendants.

What is the precise, biological interaction between a mother’s mDNA and her nuclear DNA? What will happen to children with engineered genes at adolescence? When they wish to have children themselves? How exactly will these hideously complex biochemical and genetic interactions play out? Answer: nobody knows. What “side effects” are thus likely to occur in “three-parent” children? Answer: nobody knows.

Is human life so predictable that we can at conception unambiguously forecast the livelihoods of these engineered children? Once it gets out, and it will, that a person has been genetically engineered, how will others view him? Answer: nobody knows.

There are only guesses, ignorance, wild hope, and a brazen willingness to experiment on real people as if they were lab rats. This isn’t playing God. God loves people. This is playing Dr. Frankenstein. (For more from the author of “Creating ‘Three-Parent’ Babies Won’t Cure Anyone” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congressional Bank Robbery: Republicans Cave on Everything and Leave Town

/0 Comments/in , /by

What a way for the GOP-controlled Congress to end the legislative mandate given to them in 2014. It can truly be said that whereas Democrats are the Navy SEALs of political combat, Republicans are the NAVY SEALs of political capitulation. They managed to give Democrats everything they wanted in both houses, got it all passed by violating their own rules, and left town to campaign for re-election so they can … er … well … ahh … beat Democrats and … er … well … enact some more Democrat policies.

The Senate voted first Wednesday afternoon and passed the budget continuing resolution (CR) 72-26. Only 14 of the 54 Republicans voted no, and presumably, not all for conservative reasons. The 14 GOP noes were as follows:

Corker, R-Tenn. (F, 45%)
Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%)
Flake, R-Ariz. (F, 49%)
Graham, R-S.C. (F, 30%)
Heller, R-Nev. (F, 57%)
Inhofe, R-Okla. (C, 72%)
Lankford, R-Okla. (D, 69%)
Lee, R-Utah (A, 100%)
Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%)
Perdue, R,-Ga. (C, 73%)
Risch, R-Idaho (C, 76%)
Sasse, R-Neb. (A, 94%)
Scott, R-S.C. (B, 89%)
Sessions, R-ala. (C, 78%)

This bill funded every major Democratic policy priority with no meaningful limitations on a single illegal, abusive, or harmful executive action taken by the president. It contained no limitations or reforms to Obamacare, Planned Parenthood funding, Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate on the states, sanctuary cities, or DACA amnesty. What was particularly disturbing about this blank check is that the timing of the budget deadline coincided with two new harmful unilateral policies of the Obama administration: the giveaway of oversight over internet IP addresses to a foreign entity and a net increase in refugee admission for the new fiscal year — all on top of the existing increase in refugees from the Middle East during a time of grave homeland security concerns.

The budget bill also reflected Obama’s spending priorities instead of the spending figures reflected in the Republican budget. It wasted $1.1 billion on Zika funding that was unnecessary and funded Planned Parenthood with those extra funds. While one expects compromise with divided government, this blank check was truly breathtaking in completely reflecting Democrat values — as if Republicans had no control over Congress.

And in fact, things have gotten worse since Republicans won control of the Senate in 2014. Whereas before 2015 Harry Reid only controlled the Senate, now he controls both the Senate and the House. At least when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House had to pretend to put up a fight. Now they just follow McConnell’s, R-Ky. (F, 42%) lead, which is Reid’s command.

Thus, the House rolled over and slammed the bill on the floor without three days to consult with the members. Rather than working with conservatives to craft a Republican bill, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 53%) and Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. (F, 38%) sandbagged their members with Reid’s, D-Nev. (F, 2%) steaming pile. The CR passed the House by a 342-85 margin. Only 75 Republicans voted no, a mere 30 percent of the House GOP Conference.

Adding insult to injury, House Republicans also gave in to the final demand of Democrats by passing a massive federalized water bill, which added new programs without cutting existing ineffective programs or devolving programs that are not national in scope to the states. Over 100 Republicans joined with Democrats to add a bailout for Flint, Michigan to the water bill, even though there is already ample state and federal funding to fix Flint’s water problems.

Then, the Congresscritters summarily got out of town before the night ended. As if to say, “our work is done.”

In some sense it would be a saving grace if this was the end of the 114th Congress. If they will not use their power to check and balance the other two branches, at least do no harm. Unfortunately, by having this bill expire in December, Republicans gave Harry Reid one more election-year present — a lame-duck session with massive spending bills and jailbreak legislation. And with December being his last month before retirement, one could only imagine Reid’s demands of Republicans in order to afford them the privilege of his acceptance of their capitulation.

Republicans will now campaign in their respective states and districts by inveighing against the broken system in Washington and a Democrat Party that is dangerous for our national security, spends too much money, and grows government. Time will tell if their constituents fall for it. (For more from the author of “Congressional Bank Robbery: Republicans Cave on Everything and Leave Town” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Modern Feminism: Lies, Bullies, and Whiners! Oh My!

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you want to know how to combat the social justice snowflakes of the liberal-Left, read what they’re writing. As unappealing as this sounds, it really is the best way to understand their progressive sentiments and pseudo-humanitarianism, and eventually dismantle their arguments.

Feminist blogger Luvvie Ajayi recently released her first book, “I’m Judging You: The Do-Better Manual,” a collection of essays on life, culture, social media, and fame. If you can get past the overuse of alliteration, painfully cheesy puns, and perpetual whining, you will gain insight into what has to be the most confusing, nonsensical social justice cause of our day: feminism.

Ajayi’s chapter on feminism is proof of a movement so progressive that its own proponents can’t even define it: “Believing that people should make their own choices about their own lives is ultimately what I think it means to be a feminist,” she writes.

According to Ajayi, “everyone should be a feminist,” because feminism is really just about “believing that women, and everyone, really, have the right to live life on their own terms.”
Sounds pretty unobjectionable, right? It even sounds, dare I say, conservative. Too bad not a word of it is true.

“Womanhood should be defined by each person for herself, because we are not all the same, and there’s no one way we can define it as a group,” Ajayi writes.

But if feminism is as subjective as Ajayi professes, why do people even use the term — and choose to define their entire existence on such? One word: victimhood.

Like most progressive movements, modern feminism purports to laud equality, tolerance, and freedom of expression as its primary goals. The truth, however, is that feminism promotes two unappealing visions of equality, neither of which could be considered “tolerant.”

Some feminists have attempted to reach equality by disarming and devaluing men. For these women, equality demands that the status and intrinsic worth of men be lowered for the sake of female liberation, independence, and “leveling the playing field.” This is the “fight the patriarchy” and “the future is female” group.

An alternative and more radical form of modern feminism asserts that equality demands total transcendence of sexual and all other differences — complete uniformity in role, in pay, and, consequently, in perceived value. This view not only attacks men, but any person whose beliefs or values challenge the progressive feminist agenda. I call this camp the “feminist fascists.”

“Ideology can go to hell,” Ajayi writes, “when the people who practice it consider themselves the gatekeeper.” Super tolerant.

Here’s the problem with that sentiment: Feminism is an ideology of sorts, which Ajayi even admits. And every ideology, or worldview, makes a truth claim, even if that claim is that anything goes.

The truth is, modern feminists aren’t OK with ideologies that contradict their liberal beliefs. People like Ajayi use the word “equality” to legitimize their claims of victimhood. They have the superpower of finding new ways to be perpetually offended.

Christina Hoff Sommers, AEI scholar and host of “The Factual Feminist” weekly vlog, explains how the feminist movement evolved into something its founders never intended. Instead of defending the dignity of women in the workplace and in the voting booths, today’s “intersectional feminism” unites women “at the intersection of propaganda, neurosis and rage.”

“They are bullying people now,” the “Who Stole Feminism?” author asserted in a recent interview with fellow feminist Camille Paglia.

Luvvie Ajayi notes in her book that the feminist movement has earned a bad reputation by “becoming synonymous with white women and that insidious white privilege.” Hoff Sommers agrees, and to an extent, so do I.

In her interview with Paglia, they discussed how a sort of “bourgeois protection” is being demanded by women who are least likely to experience any form of discrimination. Think: white middle-class college women and celebrities.

Ajayi writes that feminism “has been cruel by not equally prioritizing … the issues of women of color … and basically any woman who isn’t straight and white.” According to the 30-something blogger, people who question the purpose of the feminist movement “live in a dreamland” where “women are already equal.”

The irony here is that Ajayi’s adoption of “you do you” feminism only worsens this problem.

According to Sommers, intersectional feminism actually emerged in the black and Latino communities as a response to a women’s movement that attended “only to the needs of highly professional, middle class, upper middle class women.” Its main purpose was to address problems pertaining to cultural, racial, and economic minorities.

“But,” Sommers noted, “it has been appropriated by mostly middle class white women on campus.”

The term “safe space,” she added, was originally coined by early black feminists who congregated privately to discuss issues without any censorship from white feminists who didn’t have to worry about racism. As Ajayi notes, “They might be called ‘bitch,’ but we get called ‘n*gger bitch,” (edited).

Again, this is a valid criticism of the modern feminist movement, which is why it’s so mind-boggling that Ayayi, a black woman, would ascribe to an ideology that undermines any legitimate claims of oppression.

This is the tragedy of confused liberal feminism. Feminists today don’t want their “dignity” affirmed. They don’t want “justice.” They love their victim privilege too much.

Modern feminism isn’t about improving the lives of women; it’s radical progressivism by a different name.

“I just want women to be able to thrive, and my form of feminism is pretty simple: I do what I want to do and know I have the right,” Ajayi concludes the chapter.

Luvvie Ajayi does a disservice to any legitimate feminist causes by defending an ideology that doesn’t discriminate between special snowflake syndrome and genuine attacks on human dignity. To that I say, “Luvvie Ajayi, I’m judging you.” (For more from the author of “Modern Feminism: Lies, Bullies, and Whiners! Oh My!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States Congress delivered a stinging blow to the president this week when they voted to override his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), marking the first time Congress rebuked Obama’s veto.

JASTA is legislation pushed by the families of the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001. In particular, the legislation weakens sovereign immunity laws to allow victims of terrorism to sue countries that were involved in the funding of those events. In this case, 9/11 survivors have, for the past 15 years, tried to sue the Saudi government for its presumed role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Although both chambers of Congress overwhelming defeated Obama’s veto — in the Senate, 97-1 and in the House, 348-77 — the law is controversial. Concerns have been raised that it will weaken sovereign immunity laws in a way that will violate international law. Perhaps the greatest concern, however, is the backlash this new law will have on the U.S.

The possibility for backlash is predicated on the U.S.’ ability to claim sovereign immunity in the courts of other countries. As the New York Times writes,

A nation’s immunity from lawsuits in the courts of another nation is a fundamental tenet of international law. This tenet is based on the idea that equal sovereigns should not use their courts to sit in judgment of one another … international law continues to guarantee immunity, even for alleged egregious crimes.

The NYT then argues, perhaps accurately, that few nations benefit as much from sovereign immunity than the U.S., especially given our status as the most active player in diplomatic, economic, and military endeavors around the world.

Examples that help illustrate the hazards of this bill would include Iran and Cuba. Both nations have sued the U.S. and hold billions of dollars in judgments against us. (Although, hopefully we haven’t actually paid those off.) More so, lawyers are also uncertain how to view foreign aid — particularly military foreign aid — for example, to Israel. In the event military aid could be traced to deaths, say in the West Bank, the U.S. could be subject to a litany of lawsuits.

In all fairness, the bill certainly raises a number legitimate questions. But the fear mongers — and, well, it’s just about every news outlet and blog — need to calm down.

First, as much as Obama hates this bill, in the end, the new law grants the executive considerable power over suing foreign nations. That power allows the attorney general to request a court to halt a lawsuit proceeding against the foreign nation for 180 days if the U.S. government is “engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state.”

Since the bill provides the option to extend the stay by an additional 180 days if more time is needed, in theory, the government could thwart a lawsuit indefinitely.

And really, there’s nothing stopping Obama from assisting the Saudis over the 9/11 families.

I wouldn’t put it past him.

Second, this bill is all about seeking justice for 9/11 families against the Saudi government’s involvement. It’s hard to argue against that. The role Saudi Arabia played in the worst terrorist attack on American soil is increasingly obvious as the U.S. government offers additional transparency into U.S. intelligence reports.

In July, The Washington Times reported that based on the “28 pages” — classified pages from a congressional report on the 9/11 hijackings — that Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the country’s ambassador to the U.S. at the time, was funneling cash to one particular individual who had ties to the hijackers. Sadly, the list goes on and on.

After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, including terrorist mastermind too, Osama bin Laden. Yet, after all these years, Saudi Arabia has faced no repercussions, mostly thanks to our dependence on oil and its strategic location in the Middle East accessible to U.S. military assets.

Nevertheless, the Saudi government, just as any nation’s, should be held accountable for its participation in the murder of 3,000 Americans. Period.

Finally, this is merely a law that is aimed at terrorism. Lawyers Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue in their op-ed, How to Limit JASTA’s adverse impact”:

It also will create a broad precedent that can be used against the United States and its allies as an excuse for “reciprocal” or “analogous” reductions in immunity even if no suit is brought against those countries in the United States.

However, there will be limited instances in which foreign nations directly contribute to terrorism in the U.S. Those that may are certainly not countries that should cause the U.S. significant alarm in any reciprocal actions. Even if other nations decide to follow America’s lead in reducing sovereign immunity clauses regarding terrorism, it should be expected that again, there would be only a few nations we would have to worry about.

In the end, this bill represents the voices of thousands of families who feel that for too long politics has outweighed justice for the tragedies on September 11. Sometimes it’s better to do what is right than it is to do what is easiest. Victims of terrorism deserve justice, and this is but one small step. (For more from the author of “Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

China’s Economy Is Headed for a Hard Landing

/0 Comments/in , /by

The world’s second-largest economy is going to make a hard landing one day, China watchers have speculated for several years. The fact is, though, the Middle Kingdom already is well on its way.

Let’s first examine the “official” top-line numbers. In 2007, a year before the great global crisis, China’s real gross domestic product expanded at a 14.2 percent clip. Last year, it grew at 6.9 percent, representing a 50 percent decline.

The official GDP figures are increasingly suspect, however. China often releases its quarterly figures just two weeks after the end of the quarter.

This is remarkable, given a nation of 1.35 billion and the fact that the government doesn’t make any revisions. Growth estimates “conveniently” fall within Beijing’s target range.

Most importantly, credit growth continues to outpace real GDP growth by significant margins. In other words, China’s short-term growth is being pumped up by even more borrowing.

China’s aggregate debt (mostly corporate and government) is approximately 300 percent of GDP, a figure that surpasses that of the United States. Much of this debt is short term in nature and being used to roll over existing debt.

The corporate sector has experienced particular stress, with debt recently soaring as China has continued to prop up its state-owned enterprises. The percent of income used by China’s companies to service their debts has doubled since the 2008 global crisis.

The Bank for International Settlements, a collection of the world’s central banks, released data last week illustrating the explosion of Chinese debt. The bank stated that China’s credit-to-GDP gap stood at 30 percent, the highest of any country since it began collecting data in 1995.

Moreover, the current official GDP figures appear overstated, although the economy isn’t contracting given credit infusions. Growth in both industrial output and retail sales has slowed despite the credit stimulus.

Private investment has grown by only 2.1 percent year-to-date. It accounts for 60 percent of total domestic asset investment, the largest source of growth in the Chinese economy.

The biggest sign of the slowdown in China’s domestic growth: imports, which fell 12.5 percent in July. This definitively shows that domestic spending is shrinking quickly.

So how fast is the Chinese economy actually growing? It’s difficult to say, given the lack of transparency in the statistics. But it appears likely that growth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 to 5.5 percent.

Not quite a “hard landing” yet, but the makings of one seem well on the way. (For more from the author of “China’s Economy Is Headed for a Hard Landing” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Transgender Inclusion Moves From Bathrooms to Basketball Courts

/0 Comments/in , /by

North Carolina’s legislative body passed a bill mandating a statewide policy banning individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex, as opposed to their opinion of their sex.

The law, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, means people must use bathrooms and other public facilities where occupants can be in various stages of undress according to whether their sex chromosomes are XX, in the case of females, or XY, in the case of males.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community claims that the use of biology to determine sex is oppressive and limits alternatives. I agree. I all but argued this in a column earlier this year titled “You Are What You Say You Are.”

Let’s look at some possible benefits of freeing oneself from the oppression of biological determinism.

Say that I am sentenced to a five-year prison term for bank fraud. Though confinement can never be pleasant, I’d find it far more tolerable if I could convince the judge that though biologically I have XY chromosomes, in my opinion I’m really a woman and thus my confinement should be in a female prison with a female cellmate.

For the court to fail to take my sexual opinion into consideration would violate our Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, I could say.

The Atlantic Coast Conference, the entire NCAA, and the NBA have threatened to remove important games and championships from North Carolina because of its law denying bathroom rights to males who feel as if they are females and females who feel as if they’re males.

I am wondering just how consistent they are.

Only a few college basketball players have the skills to make it onto a professional team, but most of these players have skills that exceed most players’ skills in the Women’s National Basketball Association.

What if a college basketball star were to claim to be transgender and go out for the WNBA? Would the self-righteous NBA leaders come out and support him if he were to be refused?

Aside from this gender question is the gross pay discrimination between the NBA and the WNBA.

NBA players such as LeBron James (nearly $23 million) and Carmelo Anthony (also close to $23 million) individually earn twice as much money annually than every single player in the WNBA combined. The WNBA minimum rookie salary is $37,950, and the top salary is $107,000.

I bet that if the NBA and WNBA were to permit transgenderism, salaries in women’s basketball would rise dramatically.

It’s not just basketball that would yield benefits for those with XY chromosomes. What about allowing transgender XY people to box women in the Women’s International Boxing Association?

Then there are the Olympics. The men’s fastest 100-meter speed is 9.58 seconds. The women’s record is 10.49. What about giving XY people a greater chance at winning the gold by permitting them to compete in the women’s event? They could qualify by just swearing that they feel womanish or have gender dysphoria.

President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, Ashton Carter, wants to promote sex equality in the nation’s military. I don’t think he’s serious.

The minimum fitness test requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is to be able to do 35 pushups, 47 situps, and a 2-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less.

A weak male soldier might simply claim that he feels feminine. That would mean he could pass the minimum fitness requirement by meeting the female minimums of 13 pushups, 47 situps, and a 19:42 2-mile run. To boot, he would get to reside in the women’s barracks and enjoy all the privileges attendant thereto.

For most of history, homosexuals were persecuted unfairly. They pleaded, “Get out of my bedroom. What consenting adults do is no one else’s business.”

I share that sentiment, and for the most part, homosexuals have won that objective. Had their early campaign against persecution included a demand that males be permitted to use women’s bathrooms, the persecution they suffered would have continued. (For more from the author of “When Transgender Inclusion Moves From Bathrooms to Basketball Courts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report Confirms Russia’s Responsibility for Shooting Down Malaysian Airliner

/0 Comments/in , /by

In interim findings, a team of investigators says Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired from an area controlled by Russian-backed fighters in eastern Ukraine.

The team, comprised of investigators from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands, and Ukraine, is conducting a criminal investigation into the downing of MH17 on July 17, 2014, which killed all 298 people on board.

The report says “the investigation also shows that the BUK-TELAR [surface-to-air missile system] was brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and subsequently, after having shot down flight MH-17, was taken back to the Russian Federation.”

The report confirmed what has been known for some time. The day after the downing of the airliner, President Barack Obama said evidence indicated “the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile that was launched from an area that is controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside of Ukraine.”

Obama also said Russia had supplied weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons, to Russian-backed forces in Ukraine. In October 2015, a report from the Dutch Safety Board concluded the plane was brought down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile.

The tragic loss of nearly 300 innocent lives over the skies of Ukraine over two years ago is emblematic of the cavalier and naked aggression Russia has undertaken against Ukraine.

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, annexed Crimea a few weeks later, and continues to fight a war in the Donbas region against Ukrainian government forces. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cost more than 9,600 lives and resulted in over 22,000 injuries since April 2014.

The shooting down of the civilian airliner in 2014 threatened to turn worldwide public opinion further against Russia. As a result, Russian propaganda conjured up a flurry of alternative absurd conspiracy theories mostly blaming Ukraine for the shoot-down.

Russia’s disinformation campaign and trolls have targeted investigators looking into MH17, and Russia is also believed to be behind a 2015 cyberattack of the Dutch Safety Board.

The interim report findings should serve as a reminder to Americans that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not a friend that can be bargained with, rather it is a brutal regime that has brought war back to Europe, a war which continues to this day and has cost thousands of innocent lives.

Furthermore, Russia’s reaction to the shooting down of MH17 and subsequent investigations into the tragedy are clear examples of how Russia uses propaganda, cyberattacks, and obfuscation to advance its narrative of events, even when irrefutable evidence exists to prove Russian disinformation incorrect.

Whoever takes over the White House in 2017 will face an aggressive, revanchist Russia that is a threat to the United States and our allies. No amount of wishful thinking can obscure this fact.

The U.S. must approach relations with Russia from a position of strength, reassure our allies, and implement a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Russia as it currently is. The U.S. should also continue to support Ukraine as it defends itself and continues to institute necessary political and economic reforms.

MH17 was a tragic incident brought about by Russia. American leaders must not view Putin and his regime through rose-colored glasses.

Let us hope that these latest findings help clarify any misunderstandings about the nature of the Russian regime and the deadly consequences of its actions. (For more from the author of “Report Confirms Russia’s Responsibility for Shooting Down Malaysian Airliner” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, Mainstream Media, Hillary Did Not Win the First Debate

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Immediately after the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ended Monday night, liberal media pundits began gloating abuot how poorly Trump performed. Many Republicans piled on. I felt like we had watched two different debates.

Were they right? No.

Trump’s Higher Hurdle

Trump had to jump higher hurdles than Clinton to get a favorable report from the mainstream media, who favor Clinton and see the world the way she does. He faced other disadvantages.

The moderator, Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News, is being called “the third debater” by HeatStreet for his biased role. He asked six follow-up questions of Trump but none of Clinton. Holt asked Clinton nothing about her emails, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation. Instead, he “grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.”

Holt’s fact-checking follow-ups were directed at Trump, not Clinton. Todd Starnes, a contributor to The Stream, tweeted, “Lester Holt should’ve moderated — instead of auditioning to be Hillary’s press secretary.” (For other examples of the media’s unfair use of fact-checking against Trump, see The Washington Times‘ article “Eight examples where ‘fact-checking’ became opinion journalism.”)

Journalists evaluating the debate kept up the claim that Trump made many mistakes and false claims. Compared to Clinton, he is vulnerable to this criticism. Clinton is a lawyer, with years of experience nitpicking details, which showed when she got bogged down on details several times during the debate. In contrast, Trump is a creative innovator, who has focused on the big picture throughout his entire career.

Now, it is true that Trump made a few mistakes, but his misstatements were generally not material. One “error” some jumped on was his saying Clinton has “been fighting ISIS [her] entire adult life.”

Yes, ISIS began in 1999, when Clinton was 52. She hasn’t been fighting ISIS her entire adult life. But as a public figure, she has always been a strong supporter of aggressive military action against such groups. Trump exaggerated to make a point about her consistent support for military intervention. It’s called “hyperbole” and it’s a legitimate way of making a point. Nevertheless, some “fact-checkers” declared that Trump was wrong again.

Clinton Performed Even Worse

What the media is leaving out is that Clinton performed even worse than Trump. Equally missing is any praise for the clever things Trump said.

Stylistically, Clinton was a disaster. It may not be fair to judge candidates on this, but style does influence voters — remember the Nixon-Kennedy debate. She marched out in a glaringly bright red pantsuit, the type of outfit she is ridiculed for, since the harsh colors are unforgiving to her body shape. She reverted to her nasally, harsh “schoolmarm” voice throughout the length of the debate, perhaps to keep from coughing.

She came across as arrogant and condescending, unlikable, particularly when she gloated while boasting about her accomplishments. Since few voters know anything about her tenure as secretary of state other than the Benghazi terror attack and her email scandal, the bragging felt fake.

Trump cleverly interjected short comments while Clinton was speaking, refuting her. Even if a critic disagrees with him, the critic should credit him with an effective debating strategy. Of course, his critics complain that he only did that because she’s a woman — though if Clinton had done the same to him they would have been silent.

Professional political observers can argue about who did better in the debate. I think Trump did better than Clinton, but liberal journalists usually think Clinton did better than Trump. The real test is what effect the debates have on undecided voters, and that is something we won’t know for a long time. (For more from the author of “No, Mainstream Media, Hillary Did Not Win the First Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Teen Told He’d Never Stand Again, Stands for First Time During National Anthem

/0 Comments/in , /by

While football players all across America — from Pop Warner up through to the NFL — are kneeling in protest of the national anthem, South Carolina teen Wesley Baker stood up for America.

Doctors were sure he would never stand again — possibly relegated to a permanent vegetative state.

In 2013, the high school football player was walking along the highway when he was hit by an 18-wheeler. Though he survived, miraculously, Baker lost a leg and sustained heavy brain trauma, among other injuries.

But after three years of medical attention, therapy, and peerless persistence, 19-year-old Wesley Baker stood for Old Glory and the Star-Spangled Banner during Friday night’s football game at his former Conway High School.

It was the first time he’s been able to stand since his accident.

“It feels like a dream. I’ve asked God for three years… when his accident took place I said, ‘God please let my son walk again and talk again,’ and day by day, he’s shown me miracles,” his mother, Debra Phipps, told WKRC.

“Wesley, he’s worked hard, he’s lost his leg and he had a right to sit down, but now God is giving him the strength to stand up, and we all need to stand up for America,” she said. (For more from the author of “Teen Told He’d Never Stand Again, Stands for First Time During National Anthem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.