Post by The Peeler
The pedophilic serb psychopath is desperate! Somebody help her!
Post by Grik-bastarde®
Ignore/block/delete/killfile at will ANY post from std.com
It's just some fucking jew, folks. Nothing to see here; move along,
How pathetic! This must be the most ridiculous thing ever to be seen in any
part of Usenet! ROTFLOL
The mangina has no chance against the Guardian Angels of Israel and
other honorable, decent people.
Now here is Jeff Jacoby writing about several subjects.
View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, October 7, 2019
Elizabeth Warren's alternative history
When Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be American Indian came crashing down so
spectacularly and embarrassingly last fall, more than a few observers
wondered whether her presidential hopes had been irrevocably damaged.
Clearly they weren’t. Warren has emerged as the most formidable candidate in
the Democratic field, and is currently the bettors’ favorite to win the
But while the Native American DNA fiasco didn’t torpedo her campaign, it
impressed upon her how scrupulously honest she must be when talking about
her life story. Or did it?
The Massachusetts senator no longer refers to herself as Cherokee, but in
other ways her autobiographical revisionism continues.
On the campaign trail, Warren routinely introduces herself to audiences as
someone who grew up yearning to be a teacher. After graduating from college,
she was hired to work with kids suffering from learning disabilities and
“got to live my dream of being a public school teacher .” But then, in
Warren’s telling, came a painful encounter with the reality of sexism in
1960s America. Here’s how she recalled it at a Nevada rally last week:
So my first teaching position was as a special-needs teacher. I loved that
job. But by the end of the first school year I was quite visibly pregnant
and the principal didn’t invite me back for the next school year.
So I found myself at home with the baby — yep, those were the days — and I
got this idea that I could go to law school.
In the Democratic presidential debate last month, she told much the same
story, though she worded it to make clear that she was dismissed from the
classroom because she’d gotten pregnant.
I made it as a special-needs teacher. I still remember that first year as a
special-needs teacher. I could tell you what those babies looked like. I had
4- to 6-year-olds.
But at the end of that first year, I was visibly pregnant. And back in the
day, that meant that the principal said to me — wished me luck and hired
someone else for the job.
So, there I am, I'm at home, I got a baby, I can't have a job. What am I
going to do? Here's resilience: I said, I'll go to law school.
Thus Warren simultaneously plays the victim card, ingratiates herself with a
powerful Democratic Party constituency (teachers unions), and evokes the
“she persisted” theme that exhilarates her supporters.
But now, it turns out, there’s a rather different explanation for why Warren
left the “dream” job she loved so much. In 2007, when she was still teaching
at Harvard Law School and her political career had not yet begun, Warren
recorded an interview with historian Harry Kreisler for the web series
Conversations with History . Asked about her early career, she says that she
had entered college intending to be a regular classroom teacher, but had a
change of heart.
I quickly switched over, and decided what I wanted to do was work with
brain-injured children. So I got my degree in speech pathology and
audiology, which meant I would be able to work with children who had head
trauma and other kinds of brain injuries. And that’s what I did.
I was married at 19 and graduated from college after I’d married, and my
first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the
children with disabilities. And I did that for a year, and then that summer
I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency
certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a
couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to
work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby. So I had a baby and
stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking,
“What am I going to do?” My husband’s view of it was, “Stay home. We have
children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.” And I was very
restless about it.
So I went back home to Oklahoma — by this point we were living in New Jersey
because of his job — I went back home to Oklahoma for Christmas and saw a
bunch of the boys that I had been in high school debate with and they’d all
gone on to law school. And they said, “You should go to law school. You’ll
love it.” I said, “You really think so?” And they said, “Of all of us, you
should have gone to law school. You’re the one who should’ve gone to law
school.” So I took the tests, applied to law school, and the day my daughter
. . . turned 2, on her second birthday, I started law school at Rutgers Law
So Warren wasn’t dismissed from teaching because she was pregnant. She wasn’t
a victim of unenlightened sexist thinking. She had only been hired in the
first place on an “emergency certificate” and wasn’t invited back because
she “actually didn’t have the education courses” required. By her own
telling, she then enrolled in graduate school to get the necessary
credentials, only to decide that pursuing an education degree wasn’t “going
to work out for me.”
It’s a perfectly respectable, even admirable, account of how she ended up in
the world of law. But it has none of the aura of victimhood that
contemporary candidates crave as a substitute for moral authority. Assuming
Warren was telling the truth in 2007, and there is no reason to assume
otherwise, the whole business about being given the boot because she got
pregnant was concocted for political purposes. That probably doesn’t matter
to the besotted crowds at Warren rallies. But the senator’s opponents may
not be as willing to overlook her invention.
That isn’t Warren’s only latter-day concoction. She tells a real whopper
about her political prospects when she first decided to run for the US
So I went back to Massachusetts and there was a Senate race coming up. A
very popular Republican incumbent, who had a 65% approval rating, already
had $10 million in the bank — and was cute. And so I started getting all
these phone calls, and they said: “Elizabeth, you should run against him.
You should run! You should run! You won’t win, but you should run.”
But [the reason why I wouldn’t win] wasn’t any of the other stuff I talked
about. They just said, “Massachusetts is not going to elect a woman to that
seat. It’s just not going to happen, girl.” So I thought about it, and I
thought: Well, yeah, if a woman doesn’t run, I guarantee a woman will never
I call BS.
In the fall of 2011, there may have been someone just waking from a 30-year
coma who believed that Massachusetts voters would never send a woman to the
US Senate. It is inconceivable that anyone else would have thought so.
By the time Warren jumped into the race against Senator Scott Brown, the
“cute” incumbent, there was exactly nothing extraordinary about women
holding statewide office. Three women — Evelyn Murphy, Jane Swift, Kerry
Healey — had already been elected lieutenant governor. Three other women had
successfully run for other top state positions: Shannon O’Brien was elected
treasurer in 1998, Martha Coakley won the race for attorney general in 2006,
and Suzanne Bump became the first female state auditor in the 2010 election.
What’s more, Therese Murray held the powerful position of state Senate
president, Niki Tsongas was a member of the commonwealth’s congressional
delegation, Margaret Marshall had retired just a few months earlier after 11
years as chief justice of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, and US
Attorney Carmen Ortiz was the influential federal prosecutor for
Even before Warren formally entered the race, it was clear that she was a
competitor to take seriously. As the Boston Globe’s Joan Vennochi wrote in
July 2011, Warren was “being touted as a Democratic star worthy of taking on
Republican Senator Scott Brown.” Within days of Warren’s official campaign
kickoff in September, another well-regarded Democratic candidate, Newton
Mayor Setti Warren (no relation to Elizabeth), dropped out. The Globe
reported that he had been “eclipsed” by the emergence of the combative,
charismatic law professor and financial-industry scourge, who had “taken the
spotlight since she entered the race.”
A few weeks later, the only other serious Democrat running for the
nomination, City Year founder Alan Khazei, was out as well. He was unable to
compete with the “wave of enthusiasm” unleashed by Warren’s campaign —
enthusiasm that had attracted nearly $3.2 million to Warren’s campaign in
her first few weeks as a candidate.
So who, precisely, was telling Warren that “Massachusetts is not going to
elect a woman to that seat”?
It was certainly true that a woman, Coakley, had failed to win the seat in
2010, when she and Brown competed in a special election to succeed the late
Ted Kennedy. But that had nothing to do with Coakley’s sex, and everything
to do with the fact that she had run a complacent and inept campaign against
a Republican who turned out to be especially warm and relatable. Well, maybe
not everything: Brown’s signature issue was his opposition to Barack Obama’s
proposed health-care overhaul, which at the time was deeply unpopular
everywhere, including in Massachusetts.
Brown was popular, but Warren gained on him quickly. Ten days after she
became a candidate, a statewide poll showed her leading Brown by 2
percentage points in the Senate race. In early December, a second poll found
her in the lead by 7 points. For much of the following year, the race was
regarded as a toss-up. It was never Brown’s to lose, and anyone who
suggested Brown was sure to win because his opponent was female would have
been thought ridiculous. By the end of August, it was clear that momentum
had shifted in Warren’s favor: Of 19 opinion polls taken in Massachusetts in
the last two months of the campaign, 14 gave Warren a decisive lead. When
she won the election, 54-46, Massachusetts for the first time had a female
US senator — a historic development, but in no way a startling one.
Against an opponent like Donald Trump, whose commitment to historical and
autobiographical accuracy ranges from tenuous to null, Warren’s fabrications
may seem minor. But that’s no guarantee that she can get away indefinitely
with telling fictions about her career. For years she claimed to be a Native
American — a claim that came back to bite her hard. Now she claims she was
dismissed for being pregnant, and says she was told no woman could be
elected senator from Massachusetts. Maybe those fabulations won’t do her any
harm. Or maybe they, too, will come back to bite her.
Wouldn’t it be more prudent to tell the truth?
‘To Petition the Government’
Before leaving the subject of Elizabeth Warren, consider the latest in her
continuing series of presidential-campaign “plans.” On Wednesday, she
published a proposal to tax businesses and trade organizations that spend
significant amounts of money lobbying the federal government.
“Under my plan, we will end lobbying as we know it,” declares Warren. She
would insist, she says, on strictly enforcing a requirement that anyone paid
to influence government register as a lobbyist. She would require lobbyists
“to publicly report which agency rules they are seeking to influence and
what information they provide to those agencies.” And she vows to “shut the
revolving door between government and K Street.”
The right of the people to 'petition the government for a redress of
grievances' — that is, to lobby — is enshrined in the Bill of Rights
So far, so familiar, and not very different from what candidates, from both
parties, have called for — and voted for — in years past. The real point of
Warren’s plan is to impose a stiff new tax on the exercise of a fundamental
My plan also calls for something unique — a new tax on excessive lobbying
that applies to every corporation and trade organization that spends over
$500,000 per year lobbying our government. This tax will reduce the
incentive for excessive lobbying, and raise money that we can use to fight
back against this kind of onslaught when it occurs.
Under my lobbying tax proposal, companies that spend between $500,000 and $1
million per year on lobbying, calculated on a quarterly basis, will pay a
35% tax on those expenditures. For every dollar above $1 million spent on
lobbying, the rate will increase to 60% — and for every dollar above $5
million, it will increase to 75%.
Got that? If a company (or a group of companies) devotes more than half a
million dollars on lobbying the federal government, Warren thinks it should
be punished. In a Warren administration, communicating with the government —
advocating changes in federal policy, discussing the impact of a proposed
bill or regulation, complaining about enforcement, making a case for passing
or defeating a pending measure — would be made significantly more expensive,
and would therefore be significantly abridged.
But there’s a problem with abridging the freedom to lobby the government.
The Constitution forbids it. It says so in the first sentence of the Bill of
Rights: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the
people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In a government of, by, and for the people, the right to lobby — which is
what “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” means — is about
as fundamental as rights get. Citizens cannot be punished for approaching
government officials with gripes, requests, objections, suggestions,
petitions, and demands. As a law professor, Warren doubtless knows that her
“plan to tax excessive lobbying” would never stand up in court. Like many of
her vaunted “plans,” it is a populist pose, not a serious policy proposal.
It may be politically shrewd — as Peter Suderman remarks in Reason,
lobbyists are “widely viewed as grubby and unseemly, if not actively
corrupt” — but it is certainly fatally flawed.
Government cannot impose punitive taxes on “excessive” lobbying for the same
reason it cannot use taxes to punish “excessive” publishing of newspapers,
“excessive” church services, or “excessive” stumping for public office. They
are shielded by the First Amendment — even from politicians eager to cast
themselves as righteous warriors against rich and powerful special
America’s Founders knew what it was like to be denied the right to peaceably
petition the government.
“The most alarming Process that ever appeared” was how Thomas Jefferson in
1774 described the order issued by Gen. Thomas Gage, Britain’s military
commander in Massachusetts, “declaring it Treason for the Inhabitants of
that Province to assemble themselves to consider of their Grievances and
form Associations for their common Conduct.” It would be nice if
Massachusetts’s senior senator knew something about the history of the
commonwealth she represents in Congress.
Anyone who really wants to reduce the role of lobbyists in American politics
would make it a priority to reduce the scope and dominance of government. If
Washington’s horde of lawmakers, regulators, and administrators didn’t
exercise such immense authority over every aspect of our lives and
livelihoods, there would be far less need for lobbyists who were able to
influence that authority.
Washington has insinuated itself into a thousand-and-one decisions that
individuals or local governments are more than capable of making for
themselves. Which medicines can you buy? How efficient should your
lightbulbs be? Can your children's school day begin with a prayer? Who
qualifies for a mortgage? When do unemployment benefits run out? Can you pay
an employee what his labor is worth? Should abortions be restricted? Is
health insurance optional? Do artists require subsidies? Should broadcast
licenses be awarded on the basis of race and sex? Must you purchase health
In Federalist No. 45 , James Madison emphasized that under the Constitution,
the powers of the federal government “are few and defined,” while those left
to states and local communities “are numerous and indefinite.” For the first
150 years or so of our history, that was largely the case. But New
Deal/Great Society liberalism has turned the Framers' careful arrangement
inside out. Today, there is almost nothing in American life that Washington
does not consider itself fit to regulate, control, ban, tax, or mandate.
Consequently, there is almost no area of American life in which people don’t
feel they must “petition the government” — lobby — to protect themselves and
Their right to do so is enshrined in the Constitution. Elizabeth Warren’s
right to tax them into nonexistence is nonexistent.
‘It’s not the worst thing in the world to hear something you find offensive’
Bill Maher, the satirist, controversialist, and host of HBO’s extremely
popular talk show “Real Time,” has voiced any number of opinions over the
years that I thought were absurd, ignorant, or despicable. He is a caustic
enemy of religion, he publicly celebrates the death of people he disliked,
and he is such an animal-rights extremist that after a riding accident left
the actor Christopher Reeve crippled for life, he praised the horse: “If you
try to make a horse jump over something that it doesn't want to jump over,”
Maher said, “I think it really should throw you off its back.”
In short, Maher is not my favorite vendor in the marketplace of ideas — not
by a long shot.
But Maher believes ardently in the importance of that marketplace, which is
more than can be said for the frightening army of left-wing censors,
silencers, and de-platformers furiously working 24/7 to suppress all
expression with which they disagree. Far too many people now retreat at the
first hint of opposition from that mob; the temptation to avoid its wrath
can be overpowering. So I was very glad to read Maher’s interview with David
Marchese in the New York Times Magazine last week, in which he was scornful
as ever of political correctness and its practitioners.
A few excerpts:
80 percent of Americans think this politically correct BS has gone too far.
But the people on Twitter are the people who control the media a lot. They’re
the millennials who probably grew up with helicopter parents who afforded
them a sense of entitlement. They are certainly more fragile than previous
generations. Trigger warnings. Safe spaces. Crying rooms. Microaggressions.
That crowd feels like anything that upsets their tender sensibilities is
completely out of line.
* * *
The most important thing that the Democrats can do to win the next election
is to broom this element out of their party and stand up to the Twitter mob
and the ultrawoke. And I don’t like the term “woke,” because it implies I am
asleep. I was woke before some of these people were born. I grew up in a
household with two liberal parents who were ahead of their time. My father
and mother told me about civil rights. I knew what the right thing was. The
difference is that liberals protect people, and P.C. people protect
feelings. They don’t do anything. They’re pointing at other people who are
somehow falling short of their standards, which could have changed three
weeks ago. They’re constantly moving the goalposts so they can go, “Gotcha!”
* * *
When I was growing up, the most liberal thing you could do is not see color.
Well, that’s wrong now. You [must] see color, always, so you can register
your white privilege. But I grew up in the Martin Luther King era: Judge by
the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I still think
that’s the best way to do it.
* * *
Everyone fears the wrath of the Twitter mob and the social justice warriors
and the P.C. police. Religions always talk about the one true religion. Now
on the left we have the one true opinion. If you go against that, you do so
at your peril. . . . I didn’t think it would get this bad on the left.
Comedians are afraid to make jokes in clubs, because somebody will tape it
and send it out on Twitter and get the mob after you.
* * *
The politically correct people are not concerned about social justice. They
care about putting scalps on the wall.
* * *
During the second year of “Politically Incorrect” [Maher’s former talk show
on Comedy Central] we had a contest: “Politically incorrect or just stupid?”
We were trying to make the point that saying something that’s contrary is
not necessarily politically incorrect. It’s sometimes just stupid. I define
political correctness as the elevation of sensitivity over truth. That’s my
beef with it. We’re not getting to the truth, because we’re too sensitive.
* * *
Professors are afraid to speak, because what they say, even if it’s science,
might go against the politically correct notion. This is pernicious. I’m
sorry, but I have to lay that at the doorstep of the far left and the
younger generation. It’s not the worst thing in the world to hear something
you find somewhat offensive.
No, it isn’t. But how many careers will be destroyed and reputations
shattered before the malignance of "cancel culture" is finally defeated?
Subscribe to BostonGlobe.com
My Sunday column told the story of a scientific paper with the surprising
finding that a religious upbringing tends to make children less generous.
The paper, published in the journal Current Biology in 2015, attracted
widespread media attention. It also attracted the attention of some other
scholars, who discovered a fatal flaw in the authors’ math. A few months
ago, the paper was formally retracted by the researchers. When I read about
the episode, I was struck by the intellectual integrity of all the players.
“This happened without rancor or backbiting, without accusations of bigotry
or bad faith, without demands that anyone be fired or silenced,” I wrote.
“This is how science, and indeed all scholarship, is supposed to work.”
Last Wednesday , I criticized Massachusetts Representative Joe Kennedy’s
attempt to revive the “People’s Pledge” in his campaign for the US Senate.
Kennedy, who is challenging incumbent Senator Ed Markey, proposed that the
candidates agree to repudiate all advertising by outside groups. By the
terms of the pledge — first drawn up by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown in
their 2012 Senate face-off — if one candidate was the beneficiary of a
campaign ad by a third party, he would have to make a steep contribution to
a charity designated by his opponent. In my view, attempting to silence
groups with something to say about the Senate race is unworthy and
antidemocratic. What good is an election campaign in which only the
candidates get to have a say?
The last line
“She had a deeply serious expression on her face as she immersed herself in
the newspaper and with elegant fingers tried to prevent the pages from
flapping in the breeze.” — Louis de Bernières, Corelli’s Mandolin (1994)
Thank you for reading Arguable. If you liked this newsletter, why not
forward it to a friend? If a friend forwarded it to you, you can eliminate
the middleman and subscribe for free by signing up here.
I always welcome feedback — cheers, jeers, and otherwise. Let me hear from
you: My e-mail address is ***@globe.com (or just reply to this
Between Columbus Day and the remainder of the Jewish holidays, Arguable will
be on a hiatus for a few weeks. That gives you more time to luxuriate in
autumn — by far the best season — as you await Arguable's return. Enjoy!
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.