The corruption of the mind is an insidious affair.

Don’t miss Chappaquiddick! By Thomas Lifson – “The movie Chappaquiddick exceeded my very high expectations.”

“Not only is it a truthful exploration of the events that led up the death of May Jo Kopechne and the criminal cover-up of Ted Kennedy’s culpability therein, it goes deep into the character of the man, and how he got to the depraved state of indifference to the life of a young woman who had devoted herself to “the cause” of the Kennedy family.

Response: ‘Chappaquiddick’ Distorts a Tragedy New York Times, by Neal Gabler – Here’s the Lucianne page with the ‘social commentary’ discussing the situation. See also Twitchy: REALLY!? One word in this ‘Chappaquiddick’ review at NBC News has sent eyes rolling. And then there’s Flashback: Watch Ted Kennedy’s 1969 Statement About Chappaquiddick at Legal Insurrection.

The media don’t really care about Scott Pruitt’s ethics — just his reversal of Obama policies by Jack Hellner – “The media are going after Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt for traveling first class and only paying $1,500 per month for a condo, pretending it’s all a matter of ethics. It’s nonsense.”

“They actually are going after him because he dares reverse some of the rules the Environmental Protection Agency implemented without going through Congress. Dissent is just not allowed from Democrat policies and the media are the method of choice for Democrats, using it to go after any Trump administration person they don’t like. Here’s a typical headline:

That wasn’t even the half of what went down during the Obama administration.

But even as the press reported these things, there was no feeding frenzy calling for firings, such as we are seeing now with Scott Pruitt. Dpuble standard, anyone?

Then there’s Slate. Why Are Republicans Defending Scott Pruitt? By Mark Joseph Stern – “Pruitt’s apologists are not disturbed by these eye-popping ethics scandals. Instead, they’ve settled on a rather extraordinary narrative: that the journalists who’ve uncovered his misdeeds did so because they oppose his agenda.” The logic in this column is … interesting. Note the modifiers (e.g. “eye-popping”). It illustrates why there is a problem in honest public discussion.

“Pruitt was tasked with dismantling every environmental regulation imposed by the Obama administration. Alas, he’s also done so much more. Pruitt hasn’t been able to resist exploiting the perks of his power, allegedly renting a room from an energy lobbyist under market value, spending an exorbitant amount of public money on lavish travel, improperly giving big raises to political appointees, replacing security guards who would not indulge his whims, and demoting officials who questioned his waste of public funds. And the list goes on, and gets longer by the day.”

What Is a Militia, Anyway? By J.L. Woodruff – “It is safe to say the protester waving the sign meant it as a rebuke to those who think the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms.”

“As a simple declarative sentence, despite the unnecessary use of commas typical of 18th-century writing, the amendment is perfectly clear to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of English. Yet in recent decades, it has become the source of lies, distortion, and obfuscation by assorted opponents of the Bill of Rights who claim that only members of a militia may own guns.

Most of them, unlike the mawkish teens pumping their fists like Weathermen at a Viet Cong rally, are real grown-ups in coats and ties, many with law degrees and lots of official-sounding titles that make them seem like authoritative folks who really know what they’re talking about. But they don’t.

That is one of the greatest public frauds in U.S. history. Fortunately, no one needs a law degree or even extensive knowledge of what America’s Founders thought about militias to see through the fraud and to understand the 2nd Amendment. Knowing rudimentary English will do just fine.

The people pushing the nonsense that firearms ownership depends on membership in a militia are smart, well educated people. They can read English very well. They know what the 2nd Amendment means. They have chosen to distort that meaning.

Then there’s the judge who thinks scary looking guns or anything with potential military use should be banned.

Citizen’s Righteous Rant Defending 2nd Amendment Goes Viral by Debra Heine – “Robinson’s rant is a thing of beauty.” See the video.

A North Carolina gun rights advocate gave an impassioned speech defending the Second Amendment earlier this week, and the video of his speech quickly went viral. His passion was especially impressive considering the Greensboro resident isn’t even a gun owner.

Mark Robinson’s unplanned and unscripted comments came during a city council meeting Tuesday evening, where residents were debating whether a gun show should be canceled in the wake of the Parkland high school massacre.

The Politicization of the MCAT by Devorah Goldman – “Why should we care about the opinions of aspiring doctors?” Do you want ‘woke’ doctors or skilled and knowledgeable ones?

“Dr. Darrell Kirch, president and CEO of the AAMC, expressed his vision in a candid 2011 speech at the University of California, Davis: “I am a man on a mission. I believe it is critical to our future to transform health care. I’m not talking about tweaking it. I’m not talking about some nuanced improvements here and there. I’m talking about true transformation.”

Kirch has also praised the AAMC’s political advocacy efforts, which lean left on most issues.

But it is Kirch’s reform of the MCAT that raises the most concern. … “The goal is to improve the medical admissions process to find the people who you and I would want as our doctors. Being a good doctor isn’t just about understanding science, it’s about understanding people.”

Taken on their own, these questions may not seem particularly invidious.

In response to questions about these developments and their effects, the AAMC’s executive vice president, Dr. Atul Grover, referred to a set of core principles guiding the organization’s recent work. An AAMC report outlining those principles describes the organization as “a powerful voice for compassion, equity, and justice” on behalf of the nation’s academic medical institutions, and stresses the importance of “advancing a well-trained, culturally competent, and diverse health and biomedical workforce.”

If the AAMC’s objective were merely to improve the bedside manner and general sensitivity of physicians, or even to increase diversity in the medical field through conventional affirmative-action policies, few people would likely object. Unfortunately, what Kirch in particular seems to want to create is a medical community that aligns as closely as possible with his particular political views—and to insist that future doctors accept those views as settled fact. …

The AAMC is not alone among accrediting institutions seeking to steer professions leftward.

The Week in Pictures: Special Walkout Edition by Steven Hayward – “This week it appears that K-12 teachers in more and more states looked at the recent high school walkouts intended to stamp out the 2nd Amendment and said, “Hold my cigarette butt—we can do that too!

Mark Perry gets in on the act, too, but he gets bogged down in the weeds and misses the big picture. Cartoons of the day on Trump’s trade war and its potential adverse effects on his base puts the focus on the immediate economic effects as determined by simplistic economic models perhaps coupled with ‘never Trump’ fantasies. It does not consider the strategic effects in international relationships or the issues involved in only letting the other side enjoin the battle or the bargaining process in general.

Niall Ferguson does a 2012 refresh of a popular 1969 BBC series with Civilization, is the west history?. He has his ‘killer apps’ after all. In part 3 he goes off the rails (YouTube) on another modern theme, slavery, which he takes as a particularly American “sin.” He does note that most of the early immigrants to North America were indentured servants. That is contrasted to the South American situation where most immigrants, and the natives, were serfs. As a diversion, he calls the South American immigrants conquistadors and only mentions the slave imports to crow about how they, and the rest of the serfs, made for a mixed society. In making his point, he bypasses the fact that slavery still exists in some areas, the British handling of slavery such as on sugar plantations, and the general demise of a world wide cultural phenomena by the developments of Western Culture. Instead of using slavery to illustrate his theme, he chose to use it to bash a selected target.

The corruption of the mind is an insidious affair.

Comments are closed.