On November 9, 1938, Hitler’s Nazis began their campaign of terror against Jewish people by destroying their homes and businesses in Germany and Austria. This was “Kristallnacht,” or “Night of Broken Glass,” which continued through November 10, and is now recognized as the beginning of the Holocaust. The carnage of hate left approximately 100 Jews dead, 7,500 Jewish businesses damaged and hundreds of synagogues, homes, schools and graveyards vandalized. About 30,000 Jewish men were arrested, with many of them sent to concentration camps for several months until they promised to leave Germany. How many supposedly educated American know about the significance of this date? I’ll be watching to see where the news media notes it, and which sources do. The event is not generally taught in the public schools; I didn’t learn about it my school system back in Arlington, Massachusetts, which was then regarded as one of the best in the state. Sir Lawrence Olivier was my teacher, as my family never missed an episode of “The World at War” on Sundays.
1. Here’s another reason I pay obscene amounts to read the New York Times: it is astounding how extreme Left the Times Sunday Book Review section is. This is the part of the paper that makes no pretense of being written for anyone but the New York City intellectuals, and it is fingerprint evidence of just how smug, biased, anti-capitalism and contemptuous of their own country this toxic group is. The Times just published a compendium of notable reviews during the publication’s 125 year history, and the brie and Chablis Democrats loved it, especially novelist Mario Puzo’s snide review of conservative William F. Buckley’s 1968 collection of essays, “The Jewelers Eye.” Here was the passage that spattered brains on my bathroom ceiling:
“Buckley is as royally condescending to his betters as he is to peasantry. He derides Arthur Schlesinger for talking such nonsense as that the best defense against Communism may be the social welfare state. Again this is surely innocence at work. He doesn’t quite get Schlesinger’s drift, which is, obviously, that when a force stronger than yourself says, “Your money or your life,” you hand over the money, and if you’re really smart you hand over some of your money before anybody gets tough about it. It would seem unnecessary to simplify in such a fashion, but Buckley still thinks he is being begged for a handout; Schlesinger knows it’s a stickup. I do not mean to cast aspersions on the welfare state with this analogy; after all, a stickup within the legal framework of our society — via the vote, etc. — is the last word in exercising individual freedom.”
Yes, Puzo is advocating socialism as a wise and necessary capitulation to the inevitable march of Communism. Gee, I bet he was surprised when the Wall fell. And while Buckley was annoying, Puzo calling Schlesinger his “better” is more than biased, it’s ridiculous. Schlesinger was the Kennedys’ court liar, successfully draping the sociopaths in glory for decades until their corruption was undeniable. He also warped the American historical record for half a century by, among other things, declaring Woodrow Wilson a great President and Eisenhower a weak one. But of all the reviews of the past the Times chose to reprint, guess which one came in for the most praise in the next Review’s letter section.
2. Speaking of The Times on Sundays, “The Ethicist” covered a dilemma that I bet social media has made disturbingly common. A woman wrote to Appiah (that’s the Ethicist’s real name) explaining that she had an affair with a cad who, unbeknownst to her, was in a supposedly committed relationship with someone else all the while. He dumped the inquirer (and had taken up with another back-up lover), and then she discovered that her ex-‘s partner was one of her Facebook friends, though one she had never met. Now the FBF was visiting her city, and wanted to finally meet.
The question: should she tell her that her love is really a cheating heel? The Ethicist gets it right (he usually does): Of course. Why wouldn’t she? It’s the Golden Rule all the way. The fact that she also gets to stick it to the bastard is just a collateral benefit.
3. Who are those 15%? Yesterday CNN was reporting on yet another depressing poll of Joe Biden’s approval (I know, polls). This one said that “only” 15% of those polled strongly felt that the President was doing a good job. Who are these idiots? What is it that they like so much?
The lies? The dementia? The gas prices? Afghanistan? Hunter’s paintings? The flood of illegal immigrants? The College Fix found an unexpected answer: somewhere in that 15% of mouth-breathers are Brown University professors. Professor Wendy Schiller of the Brown political science department, for example, praised Biden for bringing a restoration of “stability” and “predictability” to the Presidency: “He seems to me to have a moral fortitude where he is really certain that what he’s trying to do is the right thing to do for as many people as possible.”
Ivy League professors who reason like that are teaching our best and brightest.
4. Right wing radio demagogue Mark Levin has a rhetorical excess attack; Left wing propaganda merchant Media Matters misrepresents what he said. Here’s Levin last week:
Our rulers abide by different rules. We saw that with these governors, these reprobates. But we the plebes, the serfs, the servants, we have to comply. Now, there are exceptions if you’re an illegal alien crossing the border. Regardless of whether you have a criminal background, regardless of whether you’re dealing drugs regardless if you’re a member of MS-13. You managed to get here, sort of an “unknown getaway,” I think they call them. Well, then none of this applies to you. We have two sets of rules, one for illegal aliens who come into this country, and we don’t know about them, and two, the rest of us law abiding American citizens who follow the laws and pay our taxes.
That’s right. We’re the ones, you know, the “racists,” as the media call us. All the racists out there, we’re the ones that make the country work. We’re the ones that provide the food and harvest it. We’re the ones who truck it across the country. We’re the ones who put it on the shelves to feed their fat faces. That’s correct.
Have you ever seen a so-called journalist who’s skinny? Have you, Mr. Producer? Now, almost every damn one of them is overweight, look at them with their double chins.
(I am amazed that Levin, of all people, would be fat-shaming anyone.)
Now here’s how Media Matters presented this rant in its headline: “Fox’s Mark Levin: “All the racists out there, we’re the ones that make the country work.”
5. What is the fair way for voters to regard something like this? Republican Sean Parnell has been endorsed by former President Donald Trump in the Pennsylvania GOP primary for the Senate seat up for grabs in 2022. Meanwhile, Parnell is engaged in an ugly court custody battle with his estranged wife, who claims that he physically abused her and two of their three children. Parnell denies it. Last week his wife gave a tearful account of Parnell choking her, pinning her down, and calling her “a whore.” She also accused Parnell of hitting and screaming at their children, aged 8 to 12.
“Did you ever choke your wife?” Parnell’s attorney asked the Senate candidate during a custody hearing. “Never,” Parnell said. Asked if he ever got “physical” with his wife, Parnell again answered: “Never.” Meanwhile, the evidence cast some doubts on his wife’s accusations under oath: she filed at least two court filings after the alleged abuse incidents without mentioning them or any allegations safety concerns for the three children.
Who knows who’s telling the truth? My reaction would be that I’ll always prefer the candidate who doesn’t have an angry estranged wife claiming that he physically abused her (as he shows up at court with his younger girl friend) over one who does. But is that fair?