Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker is the Jewish author of the week.  Jewish commentators often hype books by Jewish authors.  I guess it’s not unethical, but it gets a little tiresome.  The latest is StevenPinker and his book, Enlightenment Now.  The two Jewish commentators recommending it are David Brooks, in his NYT column “The Virtue of Radical Honesty,”

and Paul Solomon, in his PBS segment “Making Sense.”

Solomon says this book is a favorite of Bill Gates, who is not Jewish.  It postulates that we are living in the best times in the history of the world.  People are wealthier and healthier than at any time in the past.  There are no huge wars going on, although there are some small ones.  Democracy has been spreading, although that is slowing down now.

Neither commentary on the book reports whether we are happier now, because we are richer; Pinker wrote his book to counter the general pessimism because people are so unhappy now.  Does he posit that society is better simply because people live longer.  However, Brooks points out that

Pinker doesn’t spend much time on the decline of social trust, the breakdown of family life, the polarization of national life, the spread of tribal mentalities, the rise of narcissism, the decline of social capital, the rising alienation from institutions or the decline of citizenship and neighborliness. It’s simply impossible to tell any good-news story when looking at the data from these moral, social and emotional spheres.

From <>

At least Brooks criticizes his Jewish fellow, although he closes by saying he likes Pinker because they took a DNA test that showed they were third cousins.


Jews Versus Gentile Fed Chief?

In retaliation against Trump’s selection of a gentile, Jerome Powell, as the new chair of the Federal Reserve to replace Janet Yellen, a Jew, the Jews who control American financial markets may have driven the stock market down thousands of points.  I don’t know how they did it, but it shows the control that Jews hold over the financial system.  It may not have been consciously planned, but there was a concerted reaction to the fear that the Jewish sugar daddies and mamas at the Fed who had taken care of the Jews on Wall Street for 50 years were going away. This could be a valid fear.  Jews are clearly superior at finance; a gentile may be stupider or more incompetent, and therefore more likely to let the economy get away from him.

On the other hand, the policies pursued by the Fed for the last ten years have been very beneficial to wealthy financiers.  Trump has Mnuchin and Cohn to protect Jewish financial interests, but Jewish investors may feel like they need a Jew in charge of the Fed to protect their interests.

The Jews believed that they were going to take over control of the American political system with the election of Hillary Clinton.  Although Clinton is not Jewish, she was the perfect front person for them, and pretty much guaranteed to look out for Jewish interests, since Jews had been some of her biggest campaign supporters.  She would no doubt have had prominent Jews in her cabinet and her White House staff, who would look out for Jewish interests as Jack Lew, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and others did in the Obama administration, and Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Robert Reich, and other did in the Clinton administration.

Of course, it’s possible that the market crash on Powell’s first day was just coincidence, but it’s very suspicious.  It now looks like the crash is over and the market is recovering, but time will tell.  If the market keeps going up, then maybe there is nothing to the short term crash.  However, something triggered a sell-off after the stock market had been going almost straight up for about ten years.  Powell could just be unlucky, or there could be some racial component to the stock market mini-crash.

Op-Ed on Impeachment

In the NYT David Leonhardt proposes a bill of impeachment against President Trump.

He lists ten items, but only one is an act that could be impeachable, if it turned out to be a high crime or misdemeanor, the act of firing Comey.  The other nine are basically descriptions of impure thoughts or political braggadocio, which would mean impeachment for every politician who ever opened his mouth.

Trump may have tried to influence Comey to drop his investigation or parts of it, at the White House dinner, for example, but if Comey was not swayed by Trump, no crime was committed.  If your best friend was being arrested, wouldn’t you ask the police if they couldn’t let him go and give him another chance.  That doesn’t seem like a crime although it puts pressure on the police.  It’s their job to say no, if that’s the appropriate response.  The statement about Trump Junior’s meeting with the Russian lawyer was basically just spin, which is a Washington staple.

The firing of Comey was to some extent made less serious by the immediate appoint of Mueller.  As a result, justice was not obstructed, whether that was the intent or not.  However, I believe the firing of Comey does raise serious questions.  Trump had legal authority to fire him, but if he fired him to stop the investigation into crimes and possibly treasonous conduct, then that merits serious consideration.  If there was no actual obstruction of justice, is attempted obstruction enough?  I don’t know.

I find the whole Russia investigation spurious.  People, particularly politicians and diplomats, talk to spies all the time.  It’s part of life in the big leagues.  If they don’t disclose classified information, it’s no big deal.  What if the Russian lady lawyer had told Trump, Junior, that Hillary Clinton had passed secret information to Russia while she was Secretary of State, and showed Trump the documents Hillary had passed.  Would people still say that Trump should not have met with her?

Leonhardt has one thing right.  This debate about whether Trump did anything wrong is about impeachment, not a trial in a criminal court.  What police force has the power to lock him up and put him in jail, set bond, etc.  Mueller is doing the research to provide evidence to Congress to bring a bill of impeachment.  Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one.  Therefore, the bill can contain anything, including impure thoughts or salty language, but it must also meet the political test that a substantial portion of the population believes that it was fair and just.  A kangaroo court in the Senate will undermine people’s trust in government even further.