Benjamin Netanyahu is welcome to speak to Congress about Iran

Susan Rice and "Neville Chamberlain" Obama can just go to hell. The US Congress is completely within its rights to invite Mr Netanyahu to address them.

We basically have an anti-Semite in the White House. And Obama's dog whistle has been heard loud and clear by all the wannabe-Obama-anti-Semites on college campuses across America.

Now, suddenly, we all need to cool off

When I was a young boy in Catholic grammar school, I was picking persimmons off a tree on the other side of the school fence and throwing them at my class mates in the schoolyard. Monsignor Kilcoyne happened to be walking by and saw me. In a white-hot rage of Irish anger he marched over, grabbed me by the collar, and demanded my name. He told me that he would inform my teacher, Sister Agnita, what had happened and I would be punished appropriately. Then he marched off.

I was terrified. I had messed up badly. I did not know what punishment Sister would mete out, but I thought I would be better off me if I showed some contrition. I turned to my classmates in the schoolyard and said: “We all need to be sorry for what we have done.”

At that point, one of the boys in my class, Steve, came forward and said: “What do you mean: we? I didn’t pick any persimmons off the tree. You were the one who did it. And now you are the one who is going to pay the price. Don’t try to spread your guilt around to rest of us.” I immediately recognized how right he was and my face burned with shame.

I was reminded of this episode when I read how Bill de Blasio told a group of policemen this last weekend “We are all in this together.” “No we aren’t.” one of the officers replied.

For months de Blasio has been the foremost source of alienation and division between the police and communities of color in New York. But now, when his behavior has blown up in his face, de Blasio suddenly cries out: "We all need to come together, we all need to cool off."

No we don't, Bill. You are the one who messed up. You are the one who is responsible. And, now, you are the one who is in trouble. Shame on you for trying to involve other people in your guilt. It is not the case that voices of extremism on both the Right and the Left need to fall silent. It is only the voices on the Left that have been spewing their hatred and they are the ones that need to be silenced.

What will Krugman say now?

Several years ago, Paul Krugman wrote an idiotic column published by the New York Times in which he blamed the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords not on the demented lunatic Jared Loughner, but on a "climate of hate" supposedly created by right-wing politicians:

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
...
As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
...
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.

It turned out, of course, that there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between Mr Loughner and right-wing politicians, but Mr Krugman never retracted his vile, unfounded accusations.

It was laughable to assert that right-wing politicians had anything whatsoever to do with Jared Loughner's shooting of Congresswoman Giffords. Over the last several months, on the other hand, President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have actively encouraged blacks to believe that they are justly aggrieved at the supposedly unfair treatment they have received at the hands of supposedly racist police departments and grand juries across the nation. Obama and Holder have spoken of a breakdown in trust between the police and communities of color and implied that the frustration and disappointment that blacks feel at the behavior of the police and the grand juries in the Garner and Brown cases are understandable. Mayor de Blasio has spoken of his personal experience instructing his biracial son, Dante, to “take special care” during any police encounters, presumably, because racist police officers might gun him down.

But, if blacks were, in fact, justly aggrieved, then, it was reasonable to assume that eventually they would retaliate. Well, today, two New York City police officers were gunned down as they sat innocently in their squad car. The shooter was a black man, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who, according to the New York Times, was motivated by anger at the refusal of grand juries to indict police officers in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases:

[Brinsley] had made statements on social media suggesting that he planned to kill police officers and was angered about the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases.

In other words, unlike Sarah Palin, Obama, Holder, and de Blasio have indeed created a climate of hatred, namely, against police officers and, as Krugman wrote, "someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has."

One wonders if Krugman will feel a need to exhibit a sense of "balance" and be man enough to condemn Obama, Holder, and de Blasio with the same visceral sneers with which he condemned Sarah Palin. Of course he won't.

Obama, Holder, and DeBlasio are responsible for fomenting violence against police

As reported by the New York Times:

[Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the black man who today assassinated two New York City Police Officers as they sat in their patrol car, had] made statements on social media suggesting that he planned to kill police officers and was angered about the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases. ... The double killing comes at a moment when protests over police tactics have roiled the city and other parts of the nation. ... [Democratic New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recently had] spoken of his personal experience instructing his biracial son, Dante, to “take special care” during any police encounters. Some union leaders suggested the mayor had sent a message that police officers were to be feared. ... The killing seemed to drive the wedge between Mr. de Blasio and rank-and-file officers even deeper. Video posted online showed dozens of officers turning their backs to the mayor as he walked into a news conference on Saturday evening. “There’s blood on many hands tonight — those that incited violence on the street under the guise of protests, that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day,” the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, said outside Woodhull Hospital. He added, “That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall, in the office of the mayor.”

Mayor de Blasio is, of course, not the only Democratic leader who has suggested that the police are not to be trusted. In recent weeks, President Obama and Attorney General Holder have themselves spoken of the "breakdown in trust between the police and communities of color" and expressed sympathy for the fact that blacks feel "frustrated and disappointed" by the grand jury decisions in the Garner and Brown cases. To quote President Obama:

Obviously, how we're thinking about race relations right now has been colored by Ferguson, the [Eric] Garner case in New York, a growing awareness in the broader population of what many communities of color have understood for some time. And that is that, there's specific instances at least where -- where law enforcement doesn't feel as if it's being applied in a colorblind fashion.

The effect of the words of these three Democrats has been to suggest that the mistrust, frustration, and disappointment that blacks feel are warranted and to imply that the police (and the grand juries that have refused to indict them) are racists and behaving unjustly. But, if the black President and Attorney General of the United Staes and the Mayor of New York who has a biracial son suggest that the police, the enforcers of the law, are racists and behaving unjustly, why should we be surprised if blacks like Ismaaiyl Brinsley somehow feel they are justified in retaliating against the police?

As I have written before, instead of discouraging violence, the irresponsible utterances of Obama, Holder, and DeBlasio only foment it. As Patrick Lynch suggests, Obama, Holder, and de Blasio have some soul searching to do. They need to ask themselves to what extent they bear some responsibility for the murder of these two police officers and for the intensifying alienation between police officers and blacks across the country.

Howard Marks starts to get aggressive

Howard Marks, co-founder and Chairman of Oaktree, writes:

For the last 3 1/2 years, Oaktree's mantra has been "Move forward, but with caution." For the first time in that span, with the arrival of some disarray and risk aversion, events tell us it's appropriate to drop some of our caution, and substitute a degree of aggressiveness.

Maybe it's time to buy a few shares of Oaktree.

Where is the consistency?

The LA Times reported in September of 2012:

Internet video giant YouTube has found itself drawn into a global drama being played out in violent Mideast protests over a 14-minute video trailer for Innocence of Muslims, raising questions about the website's responsibilities as the Internet's preeminent distributor of video.

The trailer has been blamed for inciting violence in Libya, Egypt and Yemen. Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.

Later, UN Ambassador Susan Rice characterized the video as "hateful, offensive, and heinous" and again blamed the video (absurdly) as causing the attacks on our Benghazi embassy:

Rice told Fox’s Chris Wallace “what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the internet of a very hateful, very offensive video.” She told CNN’s Candy Crowley, “There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet… That sparked violence in various parts of the world…” She told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi and many other parts of the region… was a result, a direct result, of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated…” She gave similar answers to NBC’s David Gregory and CBS’s Bob Schieffer.

Subsequently, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the writer, producer, and promoter of Innocence of Muslims, was jailed:

On 27 September 2012, U.S. federal authorities arrested Nakoula in Los Angeles charging eight counts of probation violation. Prosecutors alleged that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film ... None of the charges relate to his use of the Internet [that's rich!]. Following a hearing before a judge, Nakoula was ordered to jail without bail, with the judge citing probation violations including lying to probation officials, "danger to the community" and "lack of trust in the defendant."

Today, President Obama took quite a different tone when speaking of the movie The Interview, a fictional portrayal of Americans assassinating North Korean leader Kim Jong Un:

We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States. Because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don’t like or news reports that they don’t like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended. ... I wish they had spoken to me first. I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.

So, it is an exercise of freedom of speech for Americans to make movies about assassinating a foreign leader and we should not be intimidated by parties who are offended by and respond violently against such movies, but videos disparaging Muhammad are hateful, offensive, and heinous and should be removed from YouTube?

Where is the consistency? Obama is correct to insist that Sony has the right to make whatever satirical movie it wants and to urge Sony not to be intimidated by Kim Jong Un. Why, then, did Obama and Susan Rice not come to the defense of Nakoula in the wake of Benghazi and insist on his right to make whatever movie he wanted to make about Muhammad?

Steven Pinker should stick with linguistics

MIT linguist Steven Pinker recently wrote a piece in the New Republic entitled Science Is Not Your Enemy: An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians, in which he argues not only that the scientific method can enhance our understanding of the humanities, but that scientific facts should serve as the basis for all human morality. Pinker writes:

[T]he worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities. By stripping ecclesiastical authority of its credibility on factual matters, they cast doubt on its claims to certitude in matters of morality. ... And in combination with a few unexceptionable convictions — that all of us value our own welfare and that we are social beings who impinge on each other and can negotiate codes of conduct — the scientific facts militate toward a defensible morality, namely adhering to principles that maximize the flourishing of humans and other sentient beings. This humanism, which is inextricable from a scientific understanding of the world, is becoming the de facto morality of modern democracies, international organizations, and liberalizing religions, and its unfulfilled promises define the moral imperatives we face today.[emphasis added]

Pinker, whose writings on linguistics and cognitive science I have found very enlightening over the years, here appears to be completely unacquainted with world history over the last several centuries. Does Pinker have any idea how dangerous that phrase "the scientific facts militate toward a defensible morality" is? The Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution, and the Maoists in China were well acquainted with this kind of thinking: they, too, were convinced that the "scientific facts" as they understood them "militated towards a defensible morality." They ended up almost "militating" their nations out of existence.

Furthermore, how are we to implement the "maximization of the flourishing of humans and other sentient beings?" Cows, for example, are sentient beings. How is an effort to maximize the flourishing of cows consistent with the fact that we slaughter them every day for our consumption? What's more, if, on the one hand, we can justify the slaughter of cows for the sake of maximizing the flourishing of a larger group of sentient beings (thankfully, including us humans), and yet, on the other hand, science cannot distinguish between the worth of a cow and the worth of a human being (after all, as Pinker says, "scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values"), then, what is to prevent society from slaughtering the occasional human if it can be shown based on "scientific facts" that his death will maximize the flourishing of all the other humans and sentient beings in aggregate. In fact, this was precisely the logic that Lenin and Mao applied: certain segments of the Russian and Chinese nations had to be sacrificed to promote the general welfare of the Proletariat. Pinker does allow for the "unexceptionable conviction that all of us value our own welfare," but, exactly how he proposes to pursue the one principle of maximizing the welfare of all while preserving the welfare of the individual, he does not venture to say.

Steven, better stick with linguistics.