Voter ID

The ‘Voter ID Is Racist’ Con

[snip]
Former Vice President Joe Biden called Trump’s assertion that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election a “flat lie.” But Biden did not stop there. The Republican support for voter ID, he said, was all about suppressing minority votes: “It’s what these guys are all about, man. Republicans don’t want working-class people voting. They don’t want black folks voting.” Last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., denounced “racist voter ID laws and voter suppression tactics (that) sprout like weeds all across the country.” In a press conference in July, CNN’s April Ryan asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: “So, Sarah, since you keep saying that the President is very concerned about the election process … you did not mention voter suppression in that. Voter suppression has been an issue for decades and particularly in these last few elections.”

Despite these alleged racist roadblocks to the ballot box, in 2008 blacks voted at a higher percentage than whites. That same year, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote one of the majority opinions in a 6-3 case that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, which required voters to show a photo ID — such as a driver’s license or passport — before casting their votes. Stevens recognized “flagrant examples of (voter) fraud” throughout America’s history and wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real” but “it could affect the outcome of a close election.” The additional burden on voters, Stevens argued, is more than offset by “the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”

Blacks also support voter ID. A 2016 Gallup poll found that 77 percent of non-whites support voter ID, nearly as high as the 81 percent of whites who support it.

The fact that voter ID is legal and popular does not, of course, affect the view that it “suppresses” the minority vote. The George Soros-supported website ThinkProgress ran a story last year with this menacing headline: “New Study Confirms that Voter ID Laws Are Very Racist.”

Citing research by three professors from U.C. San Diego, Michigan State and Bucknell University, the article says: “turnout among Hispanic voters is ‘7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries’ in states with strict voter ID laws. The laws also reduce turnout among African-American and Asian-American voters. White turnout, according to their study, is ‘largely unaffected.'”

Case closed? Not exactly.

A follow-up study by researchers from Yale, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania found no evidence that voter ID laws have a statistically significant impact on voter turnout. This study examined the methodology and conclusions of the previous study. Its researchers wrote: “Widespread concern that voter identification laws suppress turnout among racial and ethnic minorities has made empirical evaluations of these laws crucial. But problems with administrative records and survey data impede such evaluations. … We show that the results of the paper are a product of data inaccuracies (and) the presented evidence does not support the stated conclusion … When errors are corrected, one can recover positive, negative or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, precluding firm conclusions.”

In other words, the data do not support the notion that the “brown-brown” are too dumb, too lazy or otherwise incapable of obtaining the necessary identification to vote.

The Riot Act

The Riot Act

Ever wanted to read someone the Riot Act? Apparently all you need to do is find a group of 12 or more people “tumultuously assembled” and declare the following (preferably with a British accent, of course):

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons being assembled immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George for preventing tumultuous and riotous assemblies. God save the King.

(A bit of Westlaw research suggests that this isn’t the entire act as passed in 1715, but it’s the part that had to be read to disperse the crowd; anyone who hadn’t dispersed in one hour after this was read was guilty of “felony riot.”)

Na Und?

Sarah Hoyt writes, it’s time to weaponize “so what?”

Dennis Prager is also a fan of that question.

I am aware that we’ll never get rid of every busybody and every delicate flower. They’re human. Hell, sometimes even those of us very opposed to crazy legislation, say “there ought to be a law.” For instance I… No, wait, I can’t remember any instances, certainly not recently. But hey. I probably could, at least for five minutes.

But there is absolutely no reason to give them power. Either legislative, executive or judicial power. Or even power over our neighborhoods, our businesses, or you know, our pets, our sons, or our streets.

For too long we’ve run on “If someone squawks loud enough we’ll do that.”

It’s time to stop it. The wheel isn’t even squeaky. It’s just making noise to get attention.

It’s time to weaponize “So what?”

“I don’t like your car/dog/kid/business/idea/book/etc.” The answer to that, the civilized and decent answer should be “so what?”

“You culturally appropriated your book/music/dress/food” “So what?”

Unless I’m materially harming someone, if they squawk the answer should be so what.

We’re getting “good mannered” into tyranny.

Would-be totalitarians piggy-back on both busybodies and delicate flowers and if we let them will control every aspect of our lives. (See, France, our leader in this.) Our main defense, perhaps our only one is “So what?”

How to culture rape

Rape Accusations, Leftists, Blurred Lines, and poor Brett Kavanaugh

Item: Former Vice President Joe “Creepy Touch” Biden, when announcing that the Obama White House was creating a task force to address campus rape, stated “One in five of every one of those young women who is dropped off for that first day of school, before they finish school, will be assaulted in her college years.”

In fact, that statistic goes far beyond being a lie or a damn lie. It’s a complete fraud.

Here’s the key takeaway:

[That “statistic”] comes from a study conducted over the internet at two large universities one in the Midwest and one in the South. The survey was anonymous no one’s claims were verified and terms were not clearly defined. In round numbers, a total of 5,000 women participated. Based on their responses, the authors, not the participants, determined that 1,000 had been victims of some type of non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact and — voila! — from one vaguely worded unscientific survey we suddenly arrived at a rape culture on college campuses. Tellingly, the study authors have since explicitly stated that it’s inappropriate to use their survey to make that claim. Much more comprehensive data from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics or “BJS” estimates that about one in 52.6 college women will be victims [sic] of rape or sexual assault over the course of four years. That’s far too many, but it’s a long way from one in five. The same BJS data also reveal that women in college are safer from rape than college aged women who are not enrolled in college — but the truth doesn’t serve the purposes of feminist activists or vote seeking politicians. Lies work much better and the one in five claim is tantamount to a lie.

Let me say it again: the notion of a campus “rape culture” is a grotesque lie, based on a manifestly flawed study, that the Left peddles because it allow them to control young women and destroy young men. As Glenn Reynolds likes to point out, no sentient adult actually believes this statistic because no loving parent would ever allow his or her child to go to a place that has a rate rape comparable to the rate in South Africa, one of the most sexually violent countries in the world. The only ones who believe these statistics are college administrators and the terrified female students brought to heel by these statistical lies.

According to Time, a once reputable magazine, a Pentagon study claims that, at some military installations, more than 500 women, and quite a few men, are sexually assaulted every year:

A newly released Pentagon study revealed that many sexual assaults in the U.S. military occur across the globe at a relatively small number of bases and naval ships, including some installations where more than 500 incidents occurred in a single year.

The 119-page study, conducted by Rand Corporation, surveyed American service members to uncover where troops were most at risk of sexual assault and harassment. In many cases, installations with large populations of younger, single, and more-junior-ranking service members had a greater probability of these incidents occurring.

“Each service member’s estimated risk of being sexually assaulted in the next year depends, to a surprising extent, on his or her duty assignment to a particular unit, command, and installation,” the study said.

[snip]

Rand said more than 1700,000 active duty service and Coast Guard members completed an online sexual assault and sexual harassment survey fielded in August and September 2014. More than 560,000 were invited to participate. [The actual number is 170,000 not, as Times’ typo implies, 1,700,000.]

[snip]

A total of 6,769 men and women reported assaults in the year that ended Sept. 30, up from 6,172 a year earlier. The reports came in from uniformed service members and civilian workers. It was the highest number of reported assaults since at least 2006, the last year the Pentagon has available on the data.

There are a few points to be made based upon the above.

First, assuming all those sexual assaults are rapes (which they are not), the U.S. military, made up of young men and young women in the prime of their sexual life, has a rape rate that’s lower than 4%. Keep in mind, please, that we’re repeatedly told that America’s college campuses have a rape rate of 20% to 25%. Parents, if you want to keep your young’uns safe, send them to the military, not to college.

Second, back during WWII, when women were mobilized for the war, men and women were kept strictly segregated and chaperoned. The people in charge might have had Victorian minds (like sinks, you know), but they certainly understood that, if you want to prevent rape, you don’t mix and mingle the sexes, especially when it comes to bedrooms and bathrooms.

Third, if you read the entire Time article, you’ll note something interesting — it never once defines what constitutes “sexual assault.” Only near the end does one learn that the number of “sexual assaults” claims includes everything from sexual harassment to actual rape. Depending on how a respondent to the survey defines harassment, that’s like saying that the military is filled with terribly ill people, provided that one includes in the data set of illness everything from hangnails to cancer.

 

You don’t want to tear down those rules

Sarah Hoyt has a “Man For All Seasons devil speech”.

Outsourced Violence

So far as we know there was never ANY large scale matriarchal society.  EVER.  Not over six thousand years ago, not ever.  Granted, that is the pre-history, and there are no clear narratives.  But absent Gimbutas dreaming that bull’s heads were uteri, there really is not even a glimmer of a trace of a guess that women were ever in charge.  Those vaunted amazons of the steppes turn out to be teen boys, not women at all (now we can analyze DNA from old bones.)

Yes, there have been female fighters throughout history.  They are outliers.  Most “female military” is either honor guard or largely ornamental until the 20th century and the existence of weapons that don’t rely on upper body strength alone.

Which brings us to the reason large scale (there were isolated tribe, yes, in special circumstances) matriarchies are unlikely in the extreme in our past or our future: women aren’t as strong as men.  They just aren’t.

Over the weekend, I watched a weedy teen male whose waist I could encircle with ONE arm lift a cabinet I couldn’t budge.

Sure I’m middle aged, and would have at least lifted it somewhat 30 years ago.  BUT moving it around like it was nothing?  No.

Because 99.9% of men are stronger than all but 1% of women.  Period.  (Barring illness or other impairment.)

So, how was it possible that in prehistory, with no other improvement to human strength, women would rule?

It wasn’t.  The only way women can rule is to convince men to use their muscles on THEIR behalf, which honestly, one way or another, history shows we’ve managed.

So no, we haven’t been afraid of men for six thousand years.  We’ve cooperated in an unstable but so far successful project called civilization. As long as some men will defend women, the bad men who’d make us afraid are kept under control.

But that requires that women don’t go bad en masse, and don’t use the apparatus of a bloated state to oppress all men.

Actress (I think) chickie wants to have all men afraid of every woman.  That’s because her head is stuffed with fecaliths and she doesn’t realize that women can only have power in society by consent of men.  That women’s violence is outsourced to the apparatus of the state.

Make every man afraid of every woman, and the apparatus comes apart.  The center does not hold.  Those big burly men you want to arrest random men on your behalf?  They will instead beat you to near death, tell you to put a burka on and cook them dinner.

This is where this ends.  Using the apparatus of state violence for “advantage” and “to make men afraid has only one end.  The society these idiots want is not even possible, let alone stable.

The end is a return to barbarism, and in barbarism, women are prisoners and chattels, as they’ve always been.

And when male barbarity turns round on you, where will you hide, all the rules of chivalry being flat?

 

Medicare for All

Charles Blahous puts a price on Sanders’s proposed legislation in “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System.” These are his key findings.

  • M4A Would Place Unprecedented Strain on the Federal Budget
    By conservative estimates, this legislation would have the following effects:
  • M4A would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022–2031).
  • This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022. This amount would rise to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and continue to rise thereafter.

These estimates are conservative because they assume the legislation achieves its sponsors’ goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, in addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs.

CO2 Emissions Down in US

From The Daily Caller

Greenhouse gas emissions continued to plummet during President Donald Trump’s first year in office, according to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

Based on data from more than 8,000 large facilities, EPA found greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide, fell 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017. Emissions from large power plants fell 4.5 percent from 2016 levels, according to EPA.

“Thanks to President Trump’s regulatory reform agenda, the economy is booming, energy production is surging, and we are reducing greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sources,” EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.

Earlier this year, the Energy Information Administration reported that per-capita greenhouse gas emissions hit a 67-year low during Trump’s first year in office.

This appears to be the source of the data.

Kavanaugh Clean-up

The Black Men Who Identify with Brett Kavanaugh Understand the Stakes

The people aiming to throw out due process will be the ones hurt the most by its absence. To be sure, black victims of lynch mobs weren’t given due process, and it’s been a long battle to guarantee those rights to everyone. It’s a battle that’s still going on.

However, at least in these cases, there was a standard that was being violated. What would those who would eliminate that standard offer in its place?


No, Kavanaugh Didn’t Lie

The media is now engaged in a full-court press to establish that Kavanaugh drank to excess — when he admitted in his testimony that he drank to excess.
[snip]
His specific denial is that he never blacked out. So far, in all the people who knew him who have emerged to say he slurred his words or stumbled when he’d been drinking, no one has credibly alleged that Kavanaugh told them after a bout of drinking that he had no idea where he was or what he did the night before.

The other charges of lying are picayune. A cluster concerns his high-school yearbook and his allegedly dishonest explanation of the slang terms “boof” and “Devil’s Triangle.” His critics say those terms refer to sex acts, whereas Kavanaugh says they refer to flatulence and a drinking game, respectively.

The evidence suggests that he’s right. A history of farting — yes, there is such a thing — notes that “boof” was one slang word for flatulence, and former classmates of Kavanaugh’s wrote a letter saying that they played Devil’s Triangle, and explained how it was done.


The Complete Case for Kavanaugh

by David French, at NRO
A lengthy article, that ends up by saying:

The evidence indicates that Brett Kavanaugh faced false or mistaken claims, responded to those claims with understandable and appropriate emotion, and contested them with truthful testimony. He should be confirmed, and if he’s confirmed expect him to serve until he retires with dignity, intellectual rigor, and the same deep commitment to judicial ethics that we’ve seen throughout his entire career on the federal bench.


Democrats, It’s Time to Recognize That Your Kavanaugh Playbook Didn’t Work

I’d like to think it worked against them.


Rich Lowry’s brilliant column this week: Atticus Finch Was on the Wrong Side. It soooo catches the hypocritical Left in the hypocrisy that cannot be helped if you are an acolyte of the Alinsky School of Public Mayhemery.


NRO Editorials:

Do the Right Thing, Jeff Flake. From the editorial:

Democrats are, predictably, complaining that the FBI investigation was too limited in duration and scope. But since there is no evidence for Ford’s account beyond her own memory — and she herself testified before the Senate last week under oath — there wasn’t much for the FBI to probe.


From the editorial:

None of the people Ford identifies as witnesses to her story say that they recall the party. (Another perjury charge against Kavanaugh is that he exaggerates how exculpatory these witnesses are, but this makes him guilty of slight error, not deceit.) As a report outlined by Judiciary Committee outside counsel Rachel Mitchell makes clear, Ford has repeatedly changed some key details of her account and cannot remember others. (If Kavanaugh had similar slip-ups, the critics would be crying “perjury” about that too.) Mitchell argues that Ford’s allegation does not meet even a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.


Victor Davis Hanson weighed in with a brilliant analysis, that the Left’s antics and tactics polluting America’s campuses have now come to Capitol Hill. From his piece:

On campus, all can present equally valid narratives. What privileges one story over another is not necessarily any semblance to reality, at least as established by evidence and facts. Instead, powerful victimizers supposedly “construct” truths based on their own self-interests. As a result, self-described victims of historical biases are under no obligation to play by what they consider to be rigged rules of facts, evidence, or testimony.

The women who have known Kavanaugh all his life came out swinging on his behalf. Alexandra DeSanctis recounts some remembrances of a decidedly decent guy. From her report:


Jonah Goldberg says lefties should be thrilled that a “strict constructionist” such as Brett Kavanaugh is appointed to SCOTUS. From his column:

Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative to the core, hated flag burning just as much as those on the right who favored banning it, but he ruled it constitutionally protected free speech all the same. On criminal procedure, he was often the defendant’s best friend on the Court. Neil Gorsuch, appointed by Trump, is another conservative in the Scalia mold, and in one of his first decisions he joined with the four liberals to deliver a defeat to the Trump administration in Sessions v. Dimaya, an immigration case. Kavanaugh himself threw out one of the first Obamacare lawsuits — hardly the act of a rank partisan.


The polygraph hoopla brought on by Ford’s accusation of Kavanaugh gets a dose of reality from Jibran Kahn. From the start of his piece:

Polygraphs have featured heavily in the discussion because the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, took one (albeit with a very unusual set of questions). And why shouldn’t they? We’ve all seen spy films and crime dramas with truth-detecting polygraphs, the scourge of the guilty, which only psychopaths have a chance to thwart; their efficacy is broadly accepted, much like the harmlessness of sugar or the fact that lightning never strikes the same place twice. The power of the polygraph is widely believed, and on a bipartisan basis. Jeff Sessions has called for their use in the White House as a way to catch leakers, and Kamala Harris highlighted Ford’s polygraph and Kavanaugh’s lack of one. There is, however, a hitch. Despite the senators’ endorsement, psychologists have argued for decades that polygraphs are built on pseudoscience, and the Supreme Court was aware of this consensus by 1998


Lots more where these came from.