Category Archives: Ayn Rand

When I saw that the schedule promised an appearance by NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre and a pajama party, I knew I had to check it out.

The Young Womens Leadership Summit, put on this year in Dallas by right-leaning nonprofit Turning Point USA, brings together high school- and college-aged conservative women from all over the country. This year, the invite-only conference drew more than 1,000 to the Hyatt Regency near DFW International Airport.

Its an interesting time to be a conservative young woman. I wondered who they followed on Twitter (spoiler: Ben Shapiro). I wanted to see what kind of young person would choose to spend a summer weekend in a hotel talking about politics. I wondered how they felt about supporting a president whod been criticized for being anti-women, who had once bragged about sexual assault. I wondered how they felt about the Womens March, and whether they worried about things like the gender wage gap and restricted abortion access. Most of all, I was curious if being a conservative woman meant ignoring womens issues.

When I arrived at the hotel last Thursday, the place was teeming with scores of bright, energetic young women. As they stood in line, they introduced themselves to each other and took endless rounds of selfies. They hovered around a plate of cake pops, reconnecting with friends theyd met at last years summit. They wore heels and blazers and skirts patterned with little Republican elephants. Their excitement was palpable.

I picked up my press credentials from Turning Points communications director. He showed me to the press corral at the back of the conference hall, gave me a program, and noted what I could and could not attend during the four-day summit. Most of the breakout sessions were closed. He wrote a 5 on my schedule by the college meet-and-greet to denote that I was allotted five minutes there.

Meanwhile, outside the main conference hall, the line for the meet-and-greet with Ben Shapiro (also known as Bae Shapiro among these ranks) snaked around the foyer. Organizations like the Ayn Rand Institute and pro-gun group Empowered were putting the finishing touches on their booths. As they waited in line, women took turns holding frames emblazoned with phrases like Future Senator and posing for photos along a red carpet-style backdrop. I sidled up in line and asked as many women as I could why theyd come to this summit. Some offered full names while others declined to identify themselves.

I think big government sucks, said Sonia, who attends the College of DuPage in Illinois. (At the time, I didnt realize just how often I was going to hear Sonias sentiment.)

Some had come to learn more about starting Turning Point chapters at their schools. Many envisioned a future in politics and wanted to make connections. Most were glad for the opportunity to be away from the liberal worlds of their college campuses and among other women with whom they agreed. Samantha, clad in blue pants, goes to Messiah College in Pennsylvania and is staunchly against abortion. My college campus is really liberal, and its hard to connect with people who have the same beliefs as me, she told me. There were five people at my college campus who went to the March for Life and like 50 who went to the Womens March.

My college campus is really liberal, and its hard to connect with people who have the same beliefs as me.

Some women wore their conservatism like a badge; some skewed a little more moderate. Some loved Trump; others merely supported him. One woman told me that she had first championed Rubio, then Cruz, then finally resigned herself to Trump. He really does want to make America great again, she said.

Soon it was time for the opening session, so I ventured back to the auditorium and slipped to the back of the press corral. Pop songs blasted overhead. Each seat came with a Big Govt Sucks poster, and as cameras swept over the crowd, the women waved their signs and cheered. Soon a confetti cannon burst and Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point, strode on stage. He thanked the headline sponsor (the NRA) and pointed out that there is no war on womenevidenced, he said, by all the conservative women in attendance. This weekend, he told the gathered crowd, There will be no safe spaces. He repeated it again, for the media.

I looked down at my schedule for this invite-only, women-only summit. The banquet keynote (Laura Ingraham, a few days shy of reports that shes being considered to hold the routine White House briefings) was off limits to the press. We were allowed five minutes in the lunch hall, seven minutes to witness the Krav Maga self-defense workshop, and zero minutes at the pajama party. Political commentator Tomi Lahren, clad in a jacket with shiny sleeves, was up first. She talked a bit about the difficulty of being a conservative and urged the gathered women to stand up for themselves.

The first female president, thats a big deal for all of us, she said. Id rather it not be Hillary ClintonId rather it not be a liar or a crook.

Lock her up! someone in the audience shouted.

We dont need to lock her up, shes at Whole Foods, shes hiking through the woods, Lahren said. Though I cant talkIm unemployed too, so Hillary and I are in the same boat.

When she opened the floor up to questions, no one mentioned her recent pro-choice remarks or departure from Glenn Becks media company.

Instead: I just wanna ask what were all thinking, one attendee said. Wheres your blazer from?

Lahren said she didnt remember, but pointed out her merchandise booth to the right of the stage.

I dont live my life based off the color of my skin, or my gender. Im an American, Im a Christian, I have my beliefs, and thats how I live.

As the speakers progressed, they speculated that one of the summit attendees might become the first woman president. There was also much discussion about the strength it requires to be conservative. And even though the recent shooting had some hopeful sense of bipartisanship, there was little of that reflected here. At the end of each speakers presentation, he or she answered a brief Q&A (with mostly questions like Coke or Pepsi?). The last question, though, was always about big government, and the response was always that it sucks.

Antonia Okafor, a Second Amendment activist, told the cheering crowd: Yes, Im a black woman, and I cling to my guns, my God, and my country! Ginni Thomas, a columnist for the Daily Caller, invited attendees whod faced discrimination for being a conservative to share their stories. A high schooler was blocked from starting a Young Americans for Freedom club at her school. A young professional wept on stage while describing how she was fired from her job when a co-worker discovered her political beliefs. Another woman wanted relationship advice.

So, my boyfriends a liberal, she began. The crowd erupted in a chorus of boos.

Get a new one, Thomas said.

The hapless young woman pressed on. Apparently she really liked the guy.

If you think she should find another guy, Thomas said, stand up.

Hundreds of women clamored to their feet.

Lara Trump, the presidents daughter-in-law, came across as genuine and personable. She told the crowd about her fear in moving to New York for culinary school and her pride in helping her father-in-law win North Carolina during the election. She explained that shes going to be part of his 2020 reelection campaign. Near the end of her talk the entire assemblage sang Happy Birthday to Donald Trump.

Wayne LaPierre talked about the recent congressional shooting, which involved a female Capitol police officer.

The surest way to stop a bad guy with a gunis a good woman with a gun, he said.

In between the speakers, the young women attended 45 minute breakouts. In the Using Digital Media to Amplify Your Voice session, the presenter gave tips on posts that do well on social media and how to use plugins to find peoples contact information. Of-the-moment topics were largely closed to press, including one titled What Does Conservative Healthcare Look Like? Ironic, considering the Senate has been debating its own bill in secret.

Afterwards, I talked to Estrella Gonzales, who attends the University of Texas at Arlington. Her mother was born in Mexico, and her family were laborers and former Democrats. I wondered how she reconciled her family history with the presidents immigration policies. She told me about how her grandfather, a field worker in South Texas, used to carry sandwiches for immigrants who stopped to ask for directions. One day her grandpa discovered that his co-worker had been robbed and murdered in the fields. She conceded that immigration policy requires some meet-in-the-middle, but stressed that the presidents negative comments about immigrants werent about all immigrants and that there are bad ones.

In the end, though, it came down to this: I dont live my life based off the color of my skin, or my gender, she told me. Im an American, Im a Christian, I have my beliefs, and thats how I live.

That summed up the views of most of the women I came across. To many, gender was just another thing, as Calli Norton, from West Virginia State University, put it. I dont think it means you have a leverage, or a disadvantage. I feel like were all on an equal playing field.

The attendees had strong feelings about abortion, religion, immigration reform, and, of course, the size of the government. They admired Ben Shapiros intelligence; they were inspired by Carly Fiorinas success. Many had well-thought-out opinions, and their futures seemed bright. But I found it interesting that women (at a gathering of women) didnt feel that being a woman had much to do with their world views.

As I was leaving on the second day, attendees were lining up to be photographed with NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre. There I found Samantha, the pro-life advocate from Messiah College I had talked to earlier. She gushed about the speakers so far, all of whom shed enjoyed. When it was her turn to snap a photo with LaPierre, she smiled brightly. Then she held out her journal.

Shed been taking notes on every speaker, she explained. She asked LaPierre to sign beneath her notes on his speech.

Samanthaproud of you, his inscription read. Keep fighting.

See the original post here:

Wayne LaPierre, Tomi Lahren, and a Rally Cry From Young Conservative Women - D Magazine

The Fountainhead, part 1, chapter 9

After months of hitting one dead end after another, Howard Roark finally gets a lucky break in his job hunt not that Ayn Rand ever acknowledged the existence of luck:

John Erik Snyte looked through Roarks sketches, flipped three of them aside, gathered the rest into an even pile, glanced again at the three, tossed them down one after another on top of the pile, with three sharp thuds, and said:

Remarkable. Radical, but remarkable. What are you doing tonight?

Why? asked Roark, stupefied.

Are you free? Mind starting in at once? Take your coat off, go to the drafting room, borrow tools from somebody and do me up a sketch for a department store were remodeling. Just a quick sketch, just a general idea, but I must have it tomorrow Can you stay?

Yes, said Roark, incredulously. I can work all night.

We never find out how Roark learned about John Erik Snyte the first time his name is spoken in the text is the first line of the passage I quoted above which is just a little strange. We saw last week that Roark had been unemployed so long and gotten so desperate, he was reapplying to firms that had already rejected him. How did Snyte come into this picture? From the evidence, his firm isnt brand-new.

Was he someone Roark had known about, but held in such contempt that he refused to interview there until he literally had nowhere else to turn? Or was Roark tipped off about a job opening there but by who, since he has no friends or colleagues?

An obvious answer is that he saw a help-wanted ad in the paper and thought the position might suit him, but were never told that if so. Its possible that Rand deliberately chose to omit this information, because she couldnt think of how to have Roark find out about the job opening in a way that didnt seem like a stroke of good luck.

As I said above, Rand was fiercely opposed to the idea that theres such a thing as luck or random chance, since that might call into question her view of the world as a perfect meritocracy. Having her hero stumble across a job opening that suits him, something that would have been easy to overlook or miss, wouldnt accord with her view of how the world works. (As possible evidence of this, I skipped a section where Roark comes across an editorial by an unfamiliar architect named Gordon L. Prescott, who claims to want fresh blood and originality; but when Roark goes to interview there, it turns out he just wants to build more copies of the Parthenon.)

Personally, my headcanon is that Henry Cameron told Roark to apply with Snyte, and then secretly sent the recommendation letter that Roark always refused to accept, figuring his protege was too stubborn for his own good. It does fit with a line where Snyte says about his new hire, saying, Thats just what Ive always needed a Cameron man, even though we never see Roark actually tell his new boss anything about his background. Did it ever occur to him to wonder how Snyte knew?

Heres how the text describes John Erik Snyte:

He considered Guy Francon an impractical idealist; he was not restrained by an Classic dogma; he was much more skillful and liberal: he built anything. He had no distaste for modern architecture and built cheerfully, when a rare client asked for it, bare boxes with flat roofs, which he called progressive; he built Roman mansions which he called fastidious; he built Gothic churches which he called spiritual. He saw no difference among any of them.

Snytes system is to hire five designers, each specializing in a different style, and to blend the best ideas from each of their sketches to create the final product. Roark is the modernistic designer in the room, although he dislikes being called that:

He met his fellow designers, the four other contestants, and learned that they were unofficially nicknamed in the drafting room as Classic, Gothic, Renaissance and Miscellaneous. He winced a little when he was addressed as Hey, Modernistic.

Roark takes individuality to comical heights. Hes so obstinate about it that he cant even stand to be described as part of a movement. Whatever he does, its important to him to believe that hes the only one doing it.

Of course, its impossible for every architect in the world to be a movement of one, with styles and aesthetic choices that are completely unlike anything else in the history of humanity. All culture is a mix of imitation and improvisation. We coin terms like Gothic or Modernist to describe broad trends and patterns that, yes, are influenced by the fashions of their era. This is as true for Roark or his real-life inspiration, Frank Lloyd Wright as it is for architects of the ancient past. But Ayn Rand conceived of herself as a special snowflake, someone who stood apart from the crowd, and she wrote her protagonists the same way.

Youd think that Snytes mix-and-match design scheme would infuriate Roark, since he hates anyone else altering his work with the ferocity of a Klan member opposing miscegenation. Instead, he grudgingly goes along with it:

Roark knew what to expect of his job. He would never see his work erected, only pieces of it, which he preferred not to see; but he would be free to design as he wished and he would have the experience of solving actual problems. It was less than he wanted and more than he could expect. He accepted it at that.

What explains this temporary outbreak of reasonable behavior? It seems that long months of unemployment have worn him down, to the point where hes actually angry with himself for feeling relief at getting a job:

Roark looked at the clean white sheet before him, his fist closed tightly about the thin stem of a pencil. He put the pencil down, and picked it up again, his thumb running softly up and down the smooth shaft; he saw that the pencil was trembling. He put it down quickly, and he felt anger at himself for the weakness of allowing this job to mean so much to him, for the sudden knowledge of what the months of idleness behind him had really meant.

Its difficult to tell what Rand intends us to make of this. Some commentaries, like this one from SparkNotes, call Snyte a supposedly progressive architect who is in fact the ultimate plagiarizer, but I dont buy that. I doubt even Ayn Rand could have believed that its plagiarism for a boss to use ideas from his employees.

I think this is the more accurate description of the fault were meant to find in him:

As a man willing to give the public anything it wants, no matter how vulgar or inane, Snyte represents conformity in yet another form.

Snyte is another illustration of Rands belief that selling what your customers want to buy is a sin in business. The proper attitude is to be like Howard Roark: tell your customers what theyre going to accept, rather than vice versa, and on no account consider their preferences or tastes. Her ideal businessman is someone who sticks so obstinately to this principle that hed rather go broke and hungry than accept money from someone who insists on having opinions of their own about what the end product should look like.

Other posts in this series:

See the rest here:

The Fountainhead: American Eclectic - Patheos (blog)

Wikimedia Commons/Office of the Speaker

I would just say that of course there needs to be a degree of independence between [the Department of Justice], FBI, and the White House and a line of communications established. The presidents new at this. Hes new to government, and so he probably wasnt steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI, and White Houses. Hes just new to this.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan stated this at a press conference in defense of President Donald Trumps hope that former FBI Director James Comey would suspend an investigation into disgraced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn for possibly negotiating or colluding with Russia prior to Trumps taking office.

Though all new presidents face a learning curve when moving into the Oval Office, Donald Trump knows virtually nothing about the functions and running of the federal government, and he seemingly lacks any desire to learn. He should have at least taken Gold Star father, Khizr Khans, impassioned offer at the Democratic National Convention last summer to borrow his copy of the U.S. Constitution to understand the very basics of the job.

Having a very steep learning curve in understanding the selling of merchandise in a department store is one thing, but just [being] new to this in arguably the most powerful office on the planet is quite another.

I expect the surgeon who operates on my cataracts, and similarly the president of my country, to have a superior degree of competence, show a high standard of care, and continually update their knowledge base as additional information comes forward. Anything less places people at risk for severe injury and sets up the conditions for malpractice.

Paul Ryans attempted excuse for Trump this week, and, more generally in his spineless refusal to speak out against this presidents abusive and morally bankrupt antics raises the question: Why does Ryan support a president who he previously had serious doubts about during the primaries regarding Trumps temperament and ability to lead?

Both men agree on one primary assumption attributed to Thomas Jefferson: That government is best which governs least. Trump and Ryan (Tryan), however, take this to the extreme.

Tryans agenda centers on a market-driven approach to economic and social policy, including such tenets as reducing the size of the national government and granting more control to state and local governments; severely reducing or ending government regulations over the private sector; privatization of governmental services, industries, and institutions including education, health care, and social welfare; permanent incorporation of across-the-board non-progressive federal and state tax rates; and possibly most importantly, unfettered free market economics.

One need simply look at Tryans attempts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act; to severely curtail environmental regulations on industry and, for example, the Dodd-Frank legislation passed to reduce the chances in the banking sector of repeating the disastrous policies leading to the last economic recession; to push for the privatization of social institutions such as education with the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the Department of Education; to pass a draconian so-called tax reform plan and a national budget that places billions more dollars into the pockets of the rich and super rich, while imposing increasingly greater hardships on the remainder of our people by taking away many of the safety nets and programs needed by deserving U.S.-Americans and countries in the form of aid.

Trump most certainly does not understand, while Ryan was weaned on the philosophy of objectivism (or rational individualism in which proponents assert there are objective standards of truth) articulated by Ayn Rand in her novels and non-fiction works.

Ayn Rand, who has become the intellectual center for the economic/political/social philosophy of Libertarianism, constructs a bifurcated world of one-dimensional characters in her novels. On one side, she presents the noble, rational, intelligent, creative, inventive, self-reliant heroes of industry, music and the arts, science, commerce, and banking who wage a noble battle for dignity, integrity, personal, and economic freedom, and for the profits of their labors within an unregulated free market Capitalist system.

On the other side, she portrays the looters represented by the followers, the led, the irrational, unintelligent, misguided, misinformed, the corrupt government bureaucrats who regulate and manipulate the economy to justify nationalizing the means of economic production, who confiscate personal property, who dole out welfare to the unentitled, the lazy, and in so doing, destroy personal incentive and motivation resulting in dependency. Welfare Ayn Rand terms unearned rewards, while she argues for a system of laissez-faire Capitalism separating economics and state.

Ayn Rand bristles against the notion of collectivism, of shared sacrifice and shared rewards. Rather, she argues that individuals are not and should not be their brothers and sisters keepers; that one must only do unto oneself; that one must walk only in ones own shoes and not attempt to know the other by metaphorically walking in anothers shoes; that personal happiness is paramount; and that ones greatest good is what is good for oneself rather than for the greatest number of people.

In other words, Ayn Rand paints a world in which the evil and misguided takers wage war against the noble and heroic makers.

Paul Ryan blamed men in the inner city on their real culture problem for their higher rates of unemployment during his appearance March 12, 2014 on Bill Bennetts Morning in America program:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Earlier, Ryan spoke in 2012 that: Right now about 60 percent of the American people get more benefits in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes. So were going to a majority of takers versus makers in America and that will be tough to come back from that. Theyll be dependent on the government for their livelihoods [rather] than themselves.

Ryan, who demanded personal family time as a major condition for taking over the House Speakership, consistently opposes legislation that would extend paid family leave benefits for new parents. For example, in 2009, he voted against the proposed Federal Employees Paid Parental Act.

Paul Ryan claimed that he read Ayn Rand growing up, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are, he told members of the Atlas Society, an organization devoted to Any Rand in a 2005 speech.

The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. He went on to say, And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.

The so-called Libertarian battle cry of liberty and freedom through personal responsibility sounds wonderful on the surface, but we must ask ourselves as individuals and as a nation, what do they really mean by and what are the costs of this alleged liberty and freedom?

We must, first, cut through the coded xenophobic, racialized, and classist language, for often when politicians use the words poor, welfare, inner city, food stamps, entitlements, bad neighborhoods, foreign, culture of poverty, they tap into many white peoples anxieties and past racist teachings of people of color.

Ayn Rand and by extension, Tryan would rather blame poverty within our communities and low achievement in our schools on the cultures of those suffering from the social inequities. This cultural deficit model detracts and undermines us from interrogating and truly addressing the enormous structural inequities pervasive throughout our society, which these Libertarians would have us multiply if we were to follow their lead.

So-called social issues become wedge issues to attract people to a particular candidate. In the final analysis, though, when middle and working class people vote for these candidates, they essentially vote against their own economic self-interests.

Ragnar Danneskjld, Ayn Rands so-called moral crusading pirate and symbol for justice in Atlas Shrugged, quite tellingly expresses Ayn Rands true purpose when she puts these words in the pirates mouth:

Ive chosen a special mission of my own. Im after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of mens minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.

Hank Rearden, one of Ayn Rands righteous industrialists asks: What man.

Danneskjld replies: Robin Hood. He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, Im the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.

Read more from the original source:

Paul Ryan is a co-conspirator to Donald Trump's disastrous presidency - LGBTQ Nation

A new documentary aims to drum up public support for Betsy DeVos' proposed voucher system.

June 15, 2017, 7:05 AM GMT

Photo Credit: YouTube Screengrab

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her department have pushed for an expansion of privatized school choice programs in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, particularly in the form ofprivate school vouchers. Now a propagandistic three-part documentary series calledSchool Inc.will help DeVos in her efforts to gain public support for expanded private school choice options. The series has alreadyaired on PBS stations insome markets and will be shown on more this month.

Amajority of people across the partisan spectrum opposeprivate school vouchers, programs that redirect public education money to pay for private school tuition. Vouchers areproblematic for many reasons, including their history of allowing fordiscriminationagainst LGBTQ, disabled, and special education students, their impact onreducing public education funding,and theirineffectivenessin boosting academic achievement.

Despite these problems, private school vouchers are a long-standing priority of thecorporations and right-wing fundersbacking the education privatization movement. The late Andrew Coulson, long-time head of the Cato InstitutesCenter for Educational Freedom, was thedriving force behindSchool Inc.The Cato Institute is aright-wing, libertarian think-tankthat calls for theelimination of public schoolsin support of greater educational freedom to choose from a free market of privately run schools.

In addition toSchool Inc.srootsin the radical, libertarian Cato Institute, education historian and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of EducationDiane Ravitch foundthat the film wasfundedby a number ofarch-conservative foundationswith ties to the dark money ATMDonorsTrustand the Ayn Rand Institute. Ravitch has prescreenedSchool Inc.and provided this scathing review toThe Washington Post:

This program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but School Inc. does not.

Why would apublicbroadcast channel air a documentary that is produced by a right-wing think tank and funded by ultra-conservative donors, and that presents a single point of view without meaningful critique, all the while denigratingpubliceducation? PBS responded in part with astatement to thePost, saying,"PBS and local member stations aim to offer programs that reflect diverse viewpoints and promote civic dialogue on important topics affecting local communities."

However, as Ravitch notes, when a documentary fails to objectively present information about a topic that may not be well understood by the general public, the result is unlikely to promote civic dialogue. And when major media outlets uncritically provide a platform toright-wing ideologues, they further misinform and polarize the debate around important issues such as public education.

Visit link:

Why Is PBS Airing Right-Wing-Sponsored School Privatization Propaganda? - AlterNet

All fields are required except where indicated. Your Information Address City Country State/Prov Zip/Postal code United States Canada Afghanistan land Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia And Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cte D'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic Of Iraq Ireland Isle Of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic Of Korea, Republic Of Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States Of Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Runion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthlemy Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre And Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome And Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic Of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis And Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Your Grade Level Major College Preference Graduate Degree (i.e. Graduate, Law, Med, etc.) Your Teacher and School Information Name of school Address City Country State/Prov Zip/Postal code United States Canada Afghanistan land Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia And Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cte D'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic Of Iraq Ireland Isle Of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic Of Korea, Republic Of Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States Of Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Runion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthlemy Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre And Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome And Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic Of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis And Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Name of the teacher who assigned the essay (if applicable) Your Essay Please select the topic question your essay addresses Topic 1: Equality knows that his invention will benefit mankind greatly. Topic 2: Politically, Anthem depicts a completely collectivist society. Topic 3: To Prometheus the word "ego" is holy, but today one is usually

Equality knows that his invention will benefit mankind greatly. However, this was not his primary motivation in conducting his experiments, and it is not the primary source of the joy and the pride he experiences in his work. What is his primary motivation? Do you think that Equality is right to be motivated in this way? What do you think the world would be like if everyone were motivated in the same way?

Politically, Anthem depicts a completely collectivist society. What ideas do the rulers appeal to in order to justify their collectivist society? Do you see any similarities between these ideas and the ones that you hear around you today? In what way has your own thinking about such ideas changed as a result of reading and reflecting upon Anthem? Relate your answer to the speech, "The Soul of a Collectivist," made by a villain in a different Ayn Rand novel, The Fountainhead.

To Prometheus the word "ego" is holy, but today one is usually told that it is wrong to be an egoist. Is Prometheus an egoist? What does this mean? Is it something good or bad? Explain your answer by reference to specific events in Anthem, and to the speech, "The Soul of an Individualist," made by the hero of a different Ayn Rand novel, The Fountainhead.

Have you checked to ensure that all personally identifiable information has been removed from your essay?

Link:

Anthem Essay Contest Ayn Rand Education

The Jerusalem Post

Tech Talk: Israel's Fortune 500 companies The Jerusalem Post The award was developed, according to Boaz Arad, executive director of Ayn Rand Center Israel, in recognition of the entrepreneurial spirit which creates wealth that improves our lives, and we wanted to recognize and show appreciation to those people ...

See the rest here:

Tech Talk: Israel's Fortune 500 companies - The Jerusalem Post

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters. ByBRETT ROBERTSON

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her department have pushed for an expansion of privatized school choice programs in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, particularly in the form of private school vouchers. Now a propagandistic three-part documentary series called School Inc.will help DeVos in her efforts to gain public support for expanded private school choice options. The series has alreadyaired on PBS stations insome markets and will be shown on more this month,

A majority of people across the partisan spectrum oppose private school vouchers, programs that redirect public education money to pay for private school tuition. Vouchers are problematic for many reasons, including their history of allowing for discrimination against LGBTQ, disabled, and special education students, their impact on reducing public education funding, and their ineffectiveness in boosting academic achievement.

Despite these problems, private school vouchers are a long-standing priority of the corporations and right-wing funders backing the education privatization movement. The late Andrew Coulson, long-time head of the Cato Institutes Center for Educational Freedom, was the driving force behind School Inc. The Cato Institute is a right-wing, libertarian think-tank that calls for the elimination of public schools in support of greater educational freedom to choose from a free market of privately run schools.

In addition to School Inc.s roots in the radical, libertarian Cato Institute, education historian and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch found that the film was funded by a number of arch-conservative foundations with ties to the dark money ATM DonorsTrust and the Ayn Rand Institute. Ravitch has prescreened School Inc. and provided this scathing review to The Washington Post:

This program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but School Inc. does not.

Why would a public broadcast channel air a documentary that is produced by a right-wing think tank and funded by ultra-conservative donors, and that presents a single point of view without meaningful critique, all the while denigrating public education? PBS responded in part with a statement to the Post, saying,PBS and local member stations aim to offer programs that reflect diverse viewpoints and promote civic dialogue on important topics affecting local communities.

However, as Ravitch notes, when a documentary fails to objectively present information about a topic that may not be well understood by the general public, the result is unlikely to promote civic dialogue. And when major media outlets uncritically provide a platform to right-wing ideologues, they further misinform and polarize the debate around important issues such as public education.

Go here to read the rest:

PBS Is Airing Right-Wing-Sponsored School Privatization Propaganda - The National Memo (blog)

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin

There are two basic philosophies in this world: "We're all in this together" versus "Every man for himself." At various times, one or the other philosophy has prevailed.

One example of the first philosophy is Christianity. Early Christians sold their property, shared, and contributed to those in need. (Acts 2:44-45). Both Jesus and Paul used the image of the body to illustrate how Christians should work together. They knew f one suffered, they all suffered. (I Corinthians 12:15-27). Hoarding wealth and ignoring the needs of others is the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches. (Matthew 25:31-46).

The second philosophy is embodied by the teachings of Ayn Rand. Rand believed in what she called "enlightened self-interest," which is actually selfishness. She even wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness." Several current Republican leaders have said they admire Rand's philosophy. They seem to believe that the ultimate goal of life is to gain wealth, and if others suffer, too bad.

Three recent LVN columns, written by local and state-wide conservatives, illustrate this "Me first" philosophy. The first column (Chuck Muth, 5/17/17) seemed to celebrate failure. The point of the column was not just that we should learn from our mistakes, with which I agree. Muth's point was that people should learn how to fail, like President Donald Trump, so they can become rich. To highlight this, Muth quoted Trump: "If 'A' students are considered the smartest people of all, why don't they all become extremely wealthy entrepreneurs?"

Becoming educated in order to help others nurses, teachers, social workers, etc. is pointless, according to Muth. The only goal of education is to learn how to become a wealthy entrepreneur. This illustrates one Republican value, that achieving individual wealth is more important than serving others.

The second column (Tom Riggins, 5/26/17) then belittled college graduates, explaining that they're not special, implying they somehow coasted through college and will now find out what "real" life is like. It seemed to imply that their achievements were meaningless unless they got some high-paying job as a result. Education for its own sake is useless.

From a young age, I wanted to go to college and knew my parents couldn't pay for it. I worked hard in school and earned a four-year, full tuition scholarship. Failure wasn't a beneficial goal. When I got to college, I worked part-time since I was responsible for my room and board, books, fees, and personal expenses. I also had to keep up my grades to maintain my scholarship.

I didn't have the luxury of knowing my parents would bail me out if I failed. I also never wanted to become a wealthy entrepreneur. So according to these columnists, I was a loser who hadn't learned about "real" life. I still felt pretty special when I got my degree.

I became a teacher and eventually was privileged to teach at the Douglas and Fallon campuses of Western Nevada College. My students worked hard in "real" life and in their classes. And if I had told them that to really learn a life experience, they should fail a few classes, they probably would have walked out on me.

The third column (Ron Knecht, 5/26/17) was an attack on unions. Unions were created by working people who realized there is strength in numbers. These people fought and died to gain such rights as the 8-hour workday, the 40-hour work week, workplace safety rules, paid sick leave, paid vacations, and other benefits workers take for granted today and many businesses would love to abolish. Conservatives like to pretend that workers would have achieved these rights individually, but that just isn't true.

Liberals believe we should work together. We should extend opportunities and a helping hand to those who need it, through private charities and government programs, so everyone can reach their full potential.

Conservatives pretend they're promoting rugged individualism but what they're really promoting is selfishness. In 2002, John Kenneth Galbraith summarized it this way: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

A week ago, we celebrated the 73rd anniversary of D-Day. If those troops had stayed isolated to protect themselves, D-Day would have failed. Now President Trump is isolating America by insulting our allies and cozying up to dictators. That doesn't make America great. It makes us alone and irrelevant.

Jeanette Strong, whose column appears every other week, is a Nevada Press Association award-winning columnist. She may be reached at news@lahontanvalleynews.com.

Go here to see the original:

Shall we all hang separately? - Nevada Appeal

This post is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent The Good Men Project.

I would just say that of course there needs to be a degree of independence between [the Department of Justice], FBI, and the White House and a line of communications established. The presidents new at this. Hes new to government, and so he probably wasnt steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI, and White Houses. Hes just new to this.

Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, stated this at a press conference in defense of President Donald Trumps hope that former FBI Director, James Comey, would suspend investigating fired National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, for possibly negotiating or colluding with the Russians prior to Trumps taking office.

Though all new presidents face a learning curve when moving into the Oval Office, Donald Trump knows virtually nothing about the functions and running of the federal government, and he seemingly lacks any desire to learn. He should have at least taken Gold Star father, Khizr Khans, impassionedoffer at the Democratic National Convention last summer to borrow his copy of the U.S. Constitution to understand the very basics of the job.

Trump most certainly does not understand, while Ryan was weaned on the philosophy of objectivism (or rational individualism in which proponents assert there are objective standards of truth) articulated by Ayn Rand in her novels and non-fiction works.

Having a very steep learning curve in understanding the selling of merchandise in a department store is one thing, but just [being] new to this in arguably the most powerful and impactful office on the planet is quite another.

I expect the surgeon who operates on my cataracts, and similarly, the president of my country to have a superior degree of competence, show a high standard of care, and continually update their knowledge base as additional information comes forward. Anything less places people at risk for severe injury and sets up the conditions for malpractice.

Paul Ryans attempted excuse for Trump this week, and, more generally in his spineless refusal to speak out against this presidents abusive and morally bankrupt antics in word and action begs the question: Why does Ryan support a president who he previously had serious doubts about during the primaries regarding Trumps temperament and ability to lead?

Both men agree on one primary assumption attributed to Thomas Jefferson: That government is best which governs least. Trump and Ryan (Tryan), however, take this to the extreme.

Tryans agenda centers on a market-driven approach to economic and social policy, including such tenets as reducing the size of the national government and granting more control to state and local governments; severely reducing or ending governmental regulations over the private sector; privatization of governmental services, industries, and institutions including education, health care, and social welfare; permanent incorporation of across-the-board non-progressive marginal federal and state tax rates; and possibly most importantly, market driven and unfettered free market economics.

One need simply look at Tryans attempts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act; to severely curtail environmental regulations on industry and, for example, the Dodd-Frank legislation passed to reduce the chances in the banking sector of repeating the disastrous policies leading to the last economic recession; to push for the privatization of social institutions such as education with the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the Department of Education; to pass a draconian so-called tax reform plan and a national budget that places billions more dollars into the pockets of the rich and super rich, while imposing increasingly greater hardships on the remainder of our people by taking away many of the safety nets and programs needed by deserving U.S.-Americans and countries in the form of aid.

Trump most certainly does not understand, while Ryan was weaned on the philosophy of objectivism (or rational individualism in which proponents assert there are objective standards of truth) articulated by Ayn Rand in her novels and non-fiction works.

Ayn Rand, who has become the intellectual center for the economic/political/social philosophy of Libertarianism, constructs a bifurcated world of one-dimensional characters in her novels. On one side, she presents the noble, rational, intelligent, creative, inventive, self-reliant heroes of industry, music and the arts, science, commerce, and banking who wage a noble battle for dignity, integrity, personal, and economic freedom, and for the profits of their labors within an unregulated free market Capitalist system.

The so-called Libertarian battle cry of liberty and freedom through personal responsibility sounds wonderful on the surface

On the other side, she portrays the looters represented by the followers, the led, the irrational, unintelligent, misguided, misinformed, the corrupt government bureaucrats who regulate and manipulate the economy to justify nationalizing the means of economic production, who confiscate personal property, who dole out welfare to the unentitled, the lazy, and in so doing, destroy personal incentive and motivation resulting in dependency. Welfare Ayn Rand terms unearned rewards, while she argues for a system of laissez-faire Capitalism separating economics and state.

Ayn Rand bristles against the notion of collectivism, of shared sacrifice and shared rewards. Rather, she argues that individuals are not and should not be their brothers and sisters keepers; that one must only do unto oneself; that one must walk only in ones own shoes and not attempt to know the other by metaphorically walking in anothers shoes; that personal happiness is paramount; and that ones greatest good is what is good for oneself rather than for the greatest number of people.

In other words, Ayn Rand paints a world in which the evil and misguided takers wage war against the noble and heroic makers.

Paul Ryan blamed men in the inner city on their real culture problem for their higher rates of unemployment during his appearance March 12, 2014 on Bill Bennetts Morning in America program:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Earlier, Ryan spoke in 2012 that:

Right now about 60 percent of the American people get more benefits in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes. So were going to a majority of takers versus makers in America and that will be tough to come back from that. Theyll be dependent on the government for their livelihoods [rather] than themselves.

Ryan, who demanded personal family time as a major condition for taking over the House Speakership, consistently opposes legislation that would extend paid family leave benefits for new parents. For example, in 2009, he voted against the proposed Federal Employees Paid Parental Act.

Paul Ryan claimed that he read Ayn Rand growing up, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are, he told members of the Atlas Society, an organization devoted to Any Rand in a 2005 speech.

The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. He went on to say, And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.

The so-called Libertarian battle cry of liberty and freedom through personal responsibility sounds wonderful on the surface, but we must ask ourselves as individuals and as a nation, what do they really mean by and what are the costs of this alleged liberty and freedom?

We must, first, cut through the coded xenophobic, racialized, and classist language, for often when politicians use the words poor, welfare, inner city, food stamps, entitlements, bad neighborhoods, foreign, culture of poverty, they tap into many white peoples anxieties and past racist teachings of people of color.

Ayn Rand and by extension, Tryan would rather blame poverty within our communities and low achievement in our schools on the cultures of those suffering from the social inequities. This cultural deficit model detracts and undermines us from interrogating and truly addressing the enormousstructural inequities pervasive throughout our society, which these Libertarians would have us multiply if we were to follow their lead.

So-called social issues become wedge issues to attract people to a particular candidate. In the final analysis, though, when middle and working class people vote for these candidates, they essentially vote against their own economic self-interests.

Ragnar Danneskjld, Ayn Rands so-called moral crusading pirate and symbol for justice in Atlas Shrugged, quite tellingly expresses Ayn Rands true purpose when she puts these words in the pirates mouth:

Ive chosen a special mission of my own. Im after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of mens minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.

Hank Rearden, one of Ayn Rands righteous industrialists asks: What man.

Danneskjld replies:

Robin Hood.He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, Im the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.

Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Read this article:

Trump & Ryan's (Tryan's) Co-Conspiracy in Moral Bankruptcy - The Good Men Project (blog)

People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, Im not a crook. So said President Nixon.

What about President Trump?

Crook is a funny word. The armchair Nietzscheans out there will be warmed by the knowledge that crook over the years has described both a bishops crozier and an instrument of deceit crook meant trick in Middle English, but that noun sense of the word did not quite survive into modern English except for in the expression by hook or by crook, the first recorded use of which is found in a John Wycliffe tract from 1380.

The episcopal and criminal applications of crook both are straightforwardly metaphorical, hence the modern English crooked as well as the punchier bent, which has been used both to mean deviant (often as a synonym for homosexual) as well as corrupt: Mickey Spillane, whose literary output since the time of his death has been remarkable, wrote of the danger of a bent cop, two perfectly Spillanean syllables.

(Mickey Spillane was Ayn Rands favorite novelist not named Ayn Rand.)

Nixon seems to have been using crook to mean criminal. His famous Im not a crook declaration came during a controversy involving his personal finances, and the next sentence was: Ive earned everything Ive got. Merriam-Webster defines crook as a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices. If by crook we mean criminal, then President Trump is not that: He has been on the wrong side of the law on a few occasions, but those were civil rather than criminal matters, for instance his payment of a settlement in a federal housing-discrimination lawsuit. We settled the suit with zero with no admission of guilt, Trump insists.

No admission of guilt is not quite Im not a crook, but something closer to Al Gores pleading that no controlling legal authority prevented him from engaging in various questionable fundraising antics. As Charles Krauthammer wrote at the time: Controlling legal authority. Whatever other legacies Al Gore leaves behind between now and retirement, he forever bequeaths this newest weasel word to the lexicon of American political corruption.

The American Heritage dictionary defines crook as one who makes a living by dishonest methods. That sounds a bit more like Trump, who is inordinately proud of his own adventures in apple-stealing, boasting of his buying political favors from the likes of the Clintons: When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do. Trump made clear that what he is talking about is quid pro quo political corruption: When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. The real-estate business is heavily regulated, from planning and zoning to labor rules. (That touches another Trump legal misadventure: a dispute over unpaid wages to the illegal immigrants who worked on Trump Tower.) A friendly decision from a local agency can be worth millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions. So, is Trump a crook in the American Heritage sense? Yes, by his own description.

The president is ensnared in a mess of nested corruption claims: that he or members of his campaign had improper contact with shady Russians monkeying about with the U.S. presidential election and/or other foreign actors; that he pressured subordinates to show him political favoritism in investigating these claims; that he fired James Comey because the FBI director would not promise him favorable treatment; that these alleged actions constitute obstruction of justice or a similar serious offense.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that all of these claims end up being completely without merit. How should we go about investigating them?

It is impossible to get at that in a meaningful way without considering the unsettling question: What sort of man is the president of these United States? We know he is a habitual liar, one who tells obvious lies for no apparent reason, from claiming to own hotels that he does not own to boasting about having a romantic relationship with Carla Bruni, which never happened. (Trump is obviously a lunatic, Bruni explained.) He invented a series of imaginary friends to lie to the New York press about both his business and sexual careers. He has conducted both his private and public lives with consistent dishonesty and dishonor. He is not a man who can be taken at his word.

Conservatives used to care about that sort of thing: Bill Bennett built a literary empire on virtue, and Peggy Noonan wrote wistfully of a time When Character Was King. But even if we set aside any prissy moral considerations and put a purely Machiavellian eye on the situation, we have to conclude that having a man such as Trump as president and presumptive leader of the Republican party is an enormous problem for conservatives and for the country corporately. Allegations of petty corruption against Donald Trump cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, because no mentally functioning and decently informed adult thinks that Donald Trump, of all people, is above that sort of thing. Quid pro quo patronage? Hes proud of it. Dishonesty? He boasts about it in a book published under his name. Question: If a young, attractive, blonde woman employed by the Trump Organization came forward claiming to be having an affair with the president, why wouldnt you believe her? Because Donald Trump isnt that kind of guy? Hes precisely that kind of guy thats the main reason anybody outside of New York ever knew his name in the first place.

Of course it is the case that Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are predisposed to believe the worst about the man. But the fact is that doing so is not obviously wrong or unreasonable. Trump apologists instinctively want to treat Democrats exaggeration and hysteria as contemptible scandal-mongering, but their defenses no hard evidence of collusion with the Putin regime! sound a lot like no controlling legal authority.

The question isnt whether the president is a crook. The question is: What kind of crook is he?

READ MORE: James Comey: Memo Master Donald Trumps Obstruction of Justice Accusations James Comeys Testimony Explained

Kevin D. Williamson is National Reviews roving correspondent.

See more here:

Trump's Credibility Problem - National Review