This Tuesday marked the 159th anniversary of Robert E. Lees surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox the beginning of the end of a bitter and bloody civil war. From the modern American perspective‚ its almost impossible to comprehend the sheer scope of what the Civil War was. Over the course of just four years‚ the fighting claimed an estimated 620‚000 young American soldiers lives the equivalent of more than 6 million as a share of todays U.S. population. In his farewell message to his troops the day after his surrender‚ Lee wrote:I need not tell the survivors of so many hard fought battles who have remained steadfast to the last‚ that I have consented to this result from no distrust of them. But feeling‚ that valor and devotion could accomplish nothing that would compensate the loss that would attend the continuance of the contest I determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose finest services have endeared them to their countrymen. By the terms of the agreement Officers and men can return to their homes and remain until exchanged. You will take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed‚ and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you His blessing and protection With unceasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your country‚ and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous consideration of myself‚ I bid you an affectionate farewell.This year‚ however‚ the anniversary of this solemn moment was occasion for gleeful crowing from the left-wing corners of the internet. Happy Traitors Surrendering Day‚ one young Virginia Democrat wrote. F*** Robert E. Lee‚ f*** the Confederacy‚ and f*** their cause of treason. A widely shared video featured a woman chugging rebel tears to celebrate the Confederacy taking a fat f***ing L. (Gratuitous vulgarity seems to be a feature of this discourse.) The famous left-wing hacker group Anonymous added‚On this day (April 9th‚ 1865) the Confederacy surrendered after getting its [sic] ass kicked.READ MORE from Nate Hochman: Donald Trump‚ American MadmanThe gloating ritual here has become something of an annual affair. On the 2019 anniversary of Lees surrender‚ the American Civil Liberties Union took the opportunity to call for the removal of Lees statue from the capital of his home state of Virginia. In 2015‚ on the 150th anniversary‚ the New York Times published an op-ed scolding Americans for uncritically celebrating the event which the author dubbed a dangerous myth in the first place‚ mourning the fact that‚ in the memory of Appomattox‚ white Americans fashioned a story of prodigal sons returning for a happy family portrait. That same year‚ the New Republic used the anniversary as an opening to call for the destruction and renaming of Confederate monuments across the country‚ writing‚We arent being polite to anyone worthy of politeness‚ or advancing any noble end‚ by continuing to honor traitors in this way.What is notable about all this is its novelty. The Confederate statues and monuments that are now being toppled‚ desecrated‚ and melted down were originally established in the spirit of honor a desire to commemorate and memorialize the sacrifices of the Confederate soldiers‚ which were woven into the Souths sense of self‚ even (or perhaps especially) in defeat. This was seen as a necessary feature of the process of national reconciliation and grew out of the mutual respect that Lee and Grant displayed for one another. In the Federalist‚ John Daniel Davidson writes:Grants terms of surrender were remarkable for their leniency on the Confederate ArmyAt this crucial moment‚ it was most important to Grant and Lee that the soldiers return home safely and get on with civilian life as soon as possible. Returning to his men‚ Lee told them‚ I have done the best I could for you. Go home now‚ and if you make as good citizens as you have soldiers‚ you will do well‚ and I shall always be proud of you. En route back to his headquarters‚ Grant heard salutes and cheering begin to rise up from nearby Union batteries. He sent orders to have them stopped. The war is over‚ he said. The rebels are our countrymen again.The Civil War itself‚ of course‚ was characterized by terrible brutality‚ and both sides meted out unconditional destruction upon one another at varying junctures. (To this day‚ some parts of the South still hold grudges regarding the brutality of Shermans March to the Sea which‚ in Gen. Shermans own words‚ sought to make old and young‚ rich and poor‚ feel the hard hand of war.) But as the war drew to a conclusion‚ the Northern victors displayed a kind of martial honor that is utterly foreign to many of those who lay claim to their legacy today. Union Gen. Joshua Chamberlain went so far as to order his men to stand at attention and salute as the conquered Confederate troops marched by‚ reasoning that at such a time and under such conditions I thought it eminently fitting to show some token of our feeling. In a later account of the scene‚ Chamberlain wrote:For us they were fellow-soldiers as well‚ suffering the fate of arms. We could not look into those brave‚ bronzed faces‚ and those battered flags we had met on so many fields where glorious manhood lent a glory to the earth that bore it‚ and think of personal hate and mean revenge. Whoever had misled these men‚ we had not. We had led them back‚ home. Whoever had made that quarrel‚ we had not. It was a remnant of the inherited curse for sin. We had purged it away‚ with blood-offerings. We were all of us together factors of that high will which‚ working often through illusions of the human‚ and following ideals that lead through storms‚ evolves the enfranchisement of man.Forgive us‚ therefore‚ if from stern‚ steadfast faces eyes dimmed with tears gazed at each other across that pile of storied relics so dearly there laid down‚ and brothers hands were fain to reach across that rushing tide of memories which divided us‚ yet made us forever one.This sort of patriotism‚ charity‚ and sense of sacred duty was felt‚ expressed‚ and demonstrated by many of the men of that time‚ on both the Northern and Southern side of the war. But what the Civil War was‚ as a matter of historical fact‚ and what it meant to the men who were there as well as to the generations of Americans whose lives were shaped by its memory has very little to do with the celebratory spirit that surrounds Appomattox now. Todays vulgar cheers have very little to do with the Civil War at all. (RELATED: Robert E. Lee‚ the Man for These Hard Times)Todays gleeful celebration of Lees surrender is part and parcel of the same fervor that has sought to remove any positive commemoration of the Southern general and his counterparts from public life. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy‚ except insofar as the soiled memory of the Antebellum South can be mobilized to undermine‚ attack‚ and delegitimize Red America. The contemporary Left seeks to recast the white‚ conservative‚ Christian lumpenproletariat as the inheritors of slavery‚ segregation‚ and the numerous other crimes that have replaced men like Grant and Lee at the center of our new national mythology. Progressives are hardly ambiguous about this particular ambition. In a Salon essay about Appomattox in 2010‚ Glenn LaFantasie‚ a Civil War historian‚ wrote:The Confederacy‚ often depicted on maps as Red States (as opposed to Union Blue)‚ may have lost the fighting forcing Robert E. Lee to surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House‚ Virginia‚ on April 9‚ 1865 but the social and political values of those Red States live on‚ nurtured and sustained in a Republican Party that often sounds more Confederate in its ideology than Jefferson Davis‚ the first and only president of the Confederate States of America.This is the true meaning behind the gratuitous‚ jeering celebrations of Appomattox. It is not‚ as the anonymous X user Lunkhead noted‚ about hating traitors so much as it is about a fervent desire to punish contemporary enemies. Given the violent nature of the Confederacys demise‚ its reasonable to ask: Just what‚ exactly‚ are they giving themselves permission to do?The post Undoing the Appomattox appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Zakiya Carr Johnson hates the American system. She hates American culture.So Secretary of State Antony Blinken thought‚ Perfect! Lets hand her a top role at the State Department!That is indeed exactly what happened. Zakiya Carr Johnson‚ who has said that the United States is a failed historical model and that our culture is deeply rooted in patriarchy‚ in colonialism‚ in racism‚ has now been named the State Departments new chief diversity and inclusion officer.READ MORE from Ellie Gardey: On Abortion‚ Trump Has Gravely ErredPrior to being named to the role‚ Carr Johnson served as the director of the State Departments Race‚ Ethnicity‚ and Social Inclusion Unit during the Obama administration and co-founded an identitarian progressive activist group‚ Black Women Disrupt.When Blinken announced her appointment last week‚ he effusively praised her‚ saying that her commitment to inclusive leadership would make the State Department stronger‚ smarter‚ and more innovative.The chances of that happening are slim. Carr Johnsons extensive track record of radical anticolonialism suggests that she will seek to undermine the United States efforts to advance its interests abroad. Based on Blinkens description of the role‚ her position at the State Department will be pivotal‚ making her impact all the worse. When Blinken announced the creation of the position in 2021‚ he said that the chief diversity officer would hold senior leadership accountable and that the officeholder would report directly to him.Carr Johnson is adamant that dismantling colonialism is one of her lifes central objectives.In a 2020 webinar‚ she was insistent that traditional structure‚ including colonialism and patriarchy‚ needs to be dismantled: [W]eve literally got to be about dismantling that traditional structure at every juncture‚ she said.She also stated in that webinar that feminist leaders should be critical of traditional systems‚ how weve always done things‚ and power dynamics and how we use power. This is often difficult‚ she stated‚ because work environments are laden with traditions that already carry power dynamics‚ be they from histories of colonialism or patriarchy or misogyny.In a 2020 action plan for the organization Fair Share of Women Leaders‚ she wrote‚ I do not believe that the way we construct solutions to the most pressing issues we are facing in this world should model a colonizers map of how to do things.Additionally‚ she has argued that time has run out on efforts to tweak[] our failed historical model and that the only option is total dismantling. [T]he rules created in our organizations and baked into their very foundations are often riddled with racism‚ patriarchy and exclusion‚ she explained. These are chinks in the armor of traditional leadership that refuse to reconcile with a colonizing past‚ or recognize that time has run out for experimentation and tweaking of a failed historic model.When Carr Johnson assumes her new job at the State Department this week‚ there are a number of means through which she could implement her radical anticolonial agenda.One approach would be to undermine the State Departments efforts to support Israel given that the brand of radical anticolonialism that she professes views Israel as a settler colonial state. She has connected herself to people who hold such views‚ as in 2021 when she appeared on Marc Lamont Hills show. The TV host was fired by CNN in 2018 after he called for a free Palestine from river to sea at a U.N. event.Carr Johnson could also oppose the State Departments efforts to promote American values overseas given that she regards our system as a failed historic model and our culture as deeply misogynistic and racist. She could do this by seeking the removal of U.S. military bases in former colonies; lobbying against programs like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America; opposing the growth of programs that promote freedom of the press or freedom of religion; arguing against our strong economic and political ties with former colonies that some anticolonial activists view as a form of soft imperialism; or advocating for permitting other nations to commit abuses under the justification that American values are not universal.In her capacity overseeing personnel at the State Department‚ Carr Johnson is likely to inject the most radical forms of the Diversity‚ Equity‚ and Inclusion agenda. In the past‚ Carr Johnson has expressed her convictions that feminist leadership should be anti-racist; White-centered feminism trends and narratives should be countered; and intersectionality should be present in all spaces.Carr Johnson will be undeterred by any backlash she will face for seeking the total dismantling of American traditions‚ values‚ and ways of operating. [D]espite the tension and discomfort that may come from questioning the way things have always been‚ she wrote in 2019‚ we must critically explore privilege‚ power and process to chart new ways forward.For Johnson‚ tradition and accumulated wisdom are just excuses for those who are refusing to transform society. Its the way we have always done things is no longer an acceptable excuse‚ she wrote. We understand that a cultural shift is on the horizon and in order to save us all‚ we must be prepared to change.It is a major concern when a radical DEI activist wins a position at a corporation. But it is far more alarming when a radical who is ideologically opposed to the American system and who views its global influence as a form of colonialism becomes a top figure at the State Department.Before Carr Johnson is able to act‚ she needs to be removed. The taxpayers should not be funding the deliberate destruction of our efforts to promote American interests abroad.The post Zakiya Carr Johnson‚ State Departments Whacko Anticolonizer‚ Needs to Be Removed From Office appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO The issue of patents the intellectual property rights granted to inventors that give them exclusive control over their invention has long divided supporters of the free-market system. Its always a contentious topic in libertarian circles‚ something that will generate more anger and name-calling at a libertarian event than discussions about‚ say‚ legalizing prostitution‚ the personal ownership of nuclear weapons‚ or the constitutionality of drivers licenses. I exaggerate‚ but not by much.READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: Progressives Deadly Hypocrisy on Harm ReductionAs Libertarianism.orgexplains‚ We tend either to favor or oppose it strongly‚ depending on whether we see it as a necessary and proper guardian of legitimate individual rights‚ or a precarious and inherently unjust form of coercive monopolism. Advocates for the former position argue that without such rights individuals would not be able to profit from their mental efforts and investments‚ whereas the latter believe them to be a government-imposed restriction on labor and something that in the long run restricts the process of innovation.These are great debates to have over a cocktail‚ but theres little chance that our nation will up-end the entire system ofintellectual property. However‚ it is long overdue for policy makers to look at improving the way patents that currently are granted and defended. Obviously‚ pharmaceutical companies arent going to invest billions of dollars into ground-breaking research if someone else can come along and sell the pills at a lower cost without having to recoup the research costs.By contrast‚ even diehard patent supporters acknowledge the nefarious efforts of so-called patent trolls‚ who‚ as the Electronic Frontier Foundationdefines‚ are companies that dont focus on making products or selling services but instead collect patents‚ then use them to threaten or sue other companies and individuals. Furthermore‚ those above-mentioned drug makers often engage in dubious practices that slow the entry into the market of generic drugs‚ which leaves lifesaving medicines out of reach for millions of Americans.As my R Street Institute colleague Wayne Brough discussed in a researchreport last year:Many pharmaceutical companies employ strategic behaviors that extend rents well beyond the 20 years granted by the patent. Companies deploy tactics such as evergreening‚ patent thickets and product hopping to create artificial barriers to potential competitors seeking to enter the market with alternative products‚ resulting in delayed and higher prices for consumers.Evergreening is when patent holders file secondary patents that change tangential aspects of the product‚ such as packaging‚ dosing‚ or treatment methods‚ as a means mainly to extend the length of their monopoly protections. Patent thickets refer to a web of patentscovering essentially the same product‚ which complicates the entry of others into the market.Finally‚ product hopping is when a manufacturer develops reformulated versions of the drug (e.g.‚ a chewable rather than a tablet) or combines two separate drugs into a single drug. Per recentresearch‚ that single type of patent gaming imposed a $4.7 billion cost on the U.S. health care system based only on its impact on five particular drugs. Its easy to understand why given that the current system empowers deep-pocketed patent holders to sue upstart competitors. It provides a chilling effect on competition and innovation in the drug market.U.S. policymakers have been considering a wide range of ideas to deal with soaring pharmaceutical costs. Most of these ideas arebad ones‚ as they involve price controls and other efforts that give the government more power over private industry. Even some of the most reasonable proposed reforms‚ such as empowering Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers‚ avoid tackling the deeper problem. Instead of expanding federal control‚ Congress should look at making a variety of tweaks to the patent system in order promote more competition.What should be done? Part of the problem stems from the bureaucratic nature of the patent-approval system‚ as such decisions are made by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Its a typically slow-moving bureaucracy. Ive long since given up expecting such agencies to ever become more efficient. For instance‚ the New York Timeseditorial boardsuggestsproviding the overburdened agency with additional resources and longer time frames for patent examiners.Count me as skeptical‚ but theTimesdid offer oneuseful solution: improving the process for challenging dubious patents via the Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Bad patents have steep costs. They gum up the wheels of innovation by making it harder for would-be inventors to proceed with their work. And they leave honest inventors vulnerable to patent trolls. But it can take years and steep legal costs to challenge them.Specific reforms are complex‚ but its worth considering a process that‚ per the Times‚ makes it easier to challenge bad patents before they are granted. Reforms should also look at ways to make it easier to weed out bad patents that should not have been granted in the first place.It will be a long process to reforming the system‚ but heres a good opportunity for somebipartisanattention. At the very least‚ this issue ought to garner more consideration the next time pharmaceutical-pricing concerns push Congress in a price-control direction. None of this requires deep philosophical debates about the value of patents. Well leave those for libertarian confabs. The rest of us should look at ways of fixing the current system‚ as we try to reduce prices for drugs and other necessities by enhancing free-market competition.Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.The post Patently Stupid Rules Keep Drug Prices High appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Most conservative women‚ if asked about the first wave of feminism‚ would voice general approval. It is seen as a rather pure approach to womens issues‚ focused on protecting women and advancing political participation. Feminisms problems‚ we have been led to understand‚ appeared only much later‚ sometime in the 1960s with the second wave and beyond. This general narrative has been repeated so frequently that I scarcely thought I had to research the first wave when I started writing my book The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us.It was surprising to discoveritsmuch more coarse and colorful untold history. When my book was published‚ many thought it an outlier in its scrutiny of the common narrative‚ but the work of others continues to confirm that the first wave is not quite what weve been promised.READ MORE from Carrie Gress: The Gospel of Discontent: How Feminism Shattered Our Understanding of MotherhoodBefore going into the research of others‚ it is important to set the stage. The first wave extended through a very long and volatile period‚ from roughly the late 1700s until the 1960s. This era was marked by significant cultural upheaval‚ including political and industrial revolutions‚ the Civil War‚ the rise of democracies and end of monarchical rule‚ and the emergence of socialism/communism. Questions proliferated about women‚ their roles as wives and mothers‚ their work‚ and their place in society.During the first wave‚ large numbers of women became activists promoting suffrage‚ male chastity‚ and temperance. The womens rights movement‚ however‚ was far from tidy and unified. Some were motivated by Christian principles; for others‚ especially the feminist movements leaders‚ inspiration came from Enlightenment‚ socialist‚ and esoteric thought. These new ways of thinking made the first wave far more radical and liberal than most realize. It was no prim and proper Victorian tea party.In my book‚ I define feminism according to the use of the leading feminists‚ not as it is used in common parlance today to mean something generally pro-women or propolitical rights. Feminism‚ based on the explicit vision of its leaders‚ can be defined as an ideology characterized by three things: 1) free love or the end of monogamous marriage; 2) the occult; and 3) restructuring society‚ or what is now known as smashing the patriarchy. What I discovered in my research was that all these elements generally thought to have developed in the second wave were in fact seeded in the first. Although there was certainly a variety of thought about women generally‚ among feminisms leaders‚ these elements were readily and shockingly apparent.Witting and Unwitting Denunciations of First-Wave FeminismSeveral reviews of my book have challenged my scholarship‚ critiquing my analysis of the first wave as simply reactionary anti-feminism and an idiosyncratic caricature of the first-wave thinkers. But this is not the case. Mine is not the only scholarly critique of feminisms first wave. In 2015‚ Dr. Janice Fiamengo‚ a retired professor of English from the University of Ottawa‚ began The Fiamengo File‚ a series of YouTube videos (and‚ later‚ her Substack) focused on feminisms devastating social effects. She also published the 2017 book Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say‚ featuring stories of men who have suffered because of feminist culture.Tammy Peterson interviewed Fiamengo four times for her podcast about first-wave feminism (see the episodes The Deception of Feminism‚ Modern Feminism Destroys American Women‚ Dismantling Feminism: The Untold Harm‚ and The Untold Victims of Feminism). Fiamengo‚ who for years had been a devoted feminist‚ explains‚ Everyone thinks they know something about feminism‚ and that little that they think they know is almost completely wrong. (READ MORE from Carrie Gress: The Womens Vote and Feminisms Triumph)Those four episodes survey feminism from its beginnings‚ that is‚ from Mary Wollstonecraft up to the early 1900s. Fiamengo covers a vast array of historical information‚ context‚ and analysis. In Dismantling Feminism: The Untold Harm‚ she analyzes Elizabeth Cady Stantons Declaration of Sentiments‚ which is considered the foundational feminist document. Fiamengo critiques Stantons blanket statements‚ such as: The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman‚ having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. Fiamengo argues that this claim is historically false and that history provides many‚ many counterexamples of men and women who did not live in this tyrannical type of relationship. Evidence abounds that there were entire communities living truly and simply Christian lives in which love and marriage were unsullied by the caricature of domination Stanton characterized.Fiamengo also explores an area that was new for me: the activities of Dame Christabel Harriette Pankhurst and her mother Emmeline Pankhurst‚ a mother-daughter team generally lionized as responsible for giving British women the right to vote in 1918. The militant tactics they carried out in the early 1900s‚ which involved well over 1‚000 women‚ were akin to the kind of violence we witness today in organizations like Antifa and Black Lives Matter‚ such as firebombing homes and destroying businesses that didnt openly support their effort. The Pankhursts and their allies even tampered with the mail‚ applying chemicals to letters that led to significant burns on the hands of mailmen.Another contribution to the critique of the first wave this one unwittingly is the 2022 book Hotbed: Bohemian Greenwich Village and the Secret Club that Sparked Modern Feminism by historian Joanna Scutts. Scutts‚ who champions feminism‚ discusses a secret womens club founded in 1912 called Heterodoxy.It was named for the clubs only requirement: that a womannot be orthodox in her opinion. Scutts explains that feminism was a word known to people at the time‚ although most didnt really know what it meant‚ similar to how woke is used today. The women of Heterodoxy spent significant time and discussion trying to sort out its meaning and how it ought to be lived.This group of mostly affluent and well-educated women met in Greenwich Village‚ which was even then a hotbed for radical notions‚ especially the socialist and communist ideas from Eastern European and Russian immigrants. The Heterodoxy women worked to fill the void of feminism left by the deaths of leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Like the earlier first-wave feminists featured in my book‚ such as Mary Wollstonecraft‚ the Heterodoxy club focused on defining females as a person‚ or human being‚ in contrast to the normative understanding of woman as connected to fertility‚ children‚ and husbands.Scutts explains that Heterodoxys founder‚ unitarian minister Marie Jenney Howe‚ saw feminism as a quest to become not just our little female selves‚ but our whole‚ big‚ human selves. This overarching humanness meant a changed psychology‚ the creation of a new consciousness in women. This idea of changing or raising consciousness had already been used for several decades by socialists to fundamentally reshape society through women. Tinkering with the notion of woman has had diverse negative effects‚ such as jettisoning an understanding of human natures male-female complementarity and opening the door to todays dizzying variety of genders. It also removes from women the reality of motherhood (physical‚ psychological‚ and spiritual) as the natural way in which we engage with the world. In short‚ and quite ironically‚ it has led to the prioritization of the male mode of life over a female one and a blurring of gender to the point that today most cannot even define woman.Perhaps the most famous among the Heterodoxy women was socialist economist and writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman. She believed motherhood made it impossible for women to achieve their potential‚ and it exposed children to the risks of cruel or neglectful parenting. Therefore‚ she thought that communal living or outsourcing childcare was better for both parents and children. She also authored the book Women and Economics‚which Scutts describes as a bible for progressive young women. Scutts adds‚ The prosaic title concealed a radical vision for overturning the patriarchy‚ in which the author compared marriage to prostitution.While the names of the Heterodoxy women are little known today‚ their influence has been wide ranging. The 25 charter members includedlesbians and bisexuals‚ labor radicals‚ and socialists.Among them were suffrage artist Lou Rogers‚whose cartoons were the inspiration for Wonder Woman‚ and Crystal Eastman‚ co-founder ofthe American Civil Liberties Union. Their ideas of females as genderless persons‚ofcommunal or disengaged parenting‚ andoffeminisms general progressive vision were all used copiously by second wavers.These examples brought to light by Fiamengo and Scutts corroborate the ones in my book. The point they illustrate could not be clearer: First-wave feminism‚ far from simply supporting a benign vision of voting rights and education opportunities for women‚ already had the much more sinister elements that we see playing out from the 1960s to today.Is the First Wave a Model for Today?In light of the reality of first-wave feminism‚ how should its thoughtful critics respond to writers especially those who are conservative who advocate for the first wave as a model for young women to navigate current issues? It is certainly true that women need to find healthy ways both to understand what it means to be a woman and to thrive in relationship to others‚ as wives‚ mothers‚ professionals‚ and so on.Philosophically‚ the first waves intellectual shortcomings‚ which I address in greater detail in my book‚ are insufficient to restore what has been lost. And‚ more importantly‚ why would we want to build a new feminism(by grafting on‚ for example‚ the adjectivesconservative‚pro-life‚ orChristian) upon the broken and distorted visions of the human person and the male-female relationship that lie at the root of the problems plaguing society today? If the root is poison‚ and it is‚ no amount of decoration will make it less lethal or more true.There is also a question of practicality. The problems women face today are vastly different from the travails of the first wave. We have rights and freedoms as well as daily conveniences that were hardly conceivable when the first wave launched. The landscape is radically different. Suffrage‚ temperance‚ and the question of whether women ought to be considered equals are hardly our pressing issues. Rather‚ we are plagued by the chaotic mess of the hook-up culture‚ sexual abuse‚ divorce‚ 28 percent of Gen Z identifying as LGBTQ‚ gender transitioning‚ willful sterilization‚ infertility‚ in vitro fertilization‚ and surrogate wombs. Even if feminism had been the best solution for the abuses of a bygone era‚ there is absolutely no reason to think that more feminism will solve the contemporary problems it has undeniably caused.Our current ills consist of fundamentally existential questions about identity‚ meaning‚ purpose‚ community‚ family‚ and what it means to be a woman. As I write in The End of Woman‚ Matt Walshs definition of a woman an adult female human is a start‚ but it is not enough. We must build a coherent vision of women and femininity that distinguishes us from men by embracing the fullness of motherhood (physical‚ psychological‚ and spiritual) without denying our shared human dignity as created in the image and likeness of God.What young women and‚ really‚all women are suffering from are the effects of feminisms successful destruction of what it targeted from the beginning: the family and faith. Trying to use the first wave‚ which ignited these issues‚ to fix this is an error that neither offers a way forward nor provides a way back to a true understanding of womanhood.Read more in Carries book‚The End of Woman‚ foundhere.The post Think the First Wave Is a Model for Women? Think Again. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle recently wrote that the best argument made in favor of limiting the size of the stimulus during the Great Recession part of a larger conversation about austerity was one of ethos. We werent spending the money in theory‚ she wrote‚ or in 1945‚ when an ethos of fiscal responsibility prevailed. We were spending it in the 21st century‚ when that ethos had collapsed‚ so there was a considerable chance that when the good times finally rolled around‚ no politician would willingly undertake the sacrifices necessary to get the budget back in shape.She got me thinking about Americas fiscal norms.READ MORE from Veronique de Rugy: Washingtons Job Creation Circus Is Hitting the RoadIts fair to say that the ethos of sound fiscal and monetary policy started with none other than Alexander Hamilton. In his January 1790 Report on Public Credit‚ Hamilton advocated for fully funded permanent public debt. This report laid the groundwork for a financial system supported by securely backed debt together with commodity money. Later that year‚ Hamilton proposed the establishment of the Bank of the United States. Though not a central bank by todays standards‚ he thought it crucial for securing federal credit and a stable currency. Hamilton recognized the interconnectedness of fiscal and monetary policies.Since then‚ the United States and most stable countries have developed norms guiding different kinds of policy behavior. U.S. monetary policy norms have largely evolved through legislative actions‚ shaping the roles and responsibilities of our central bank the Federal Reserve in managing the currency and responding to economic shifts. By contrast‚ according to University of Virginia economist Eric Leeper‚ Americas fiscal policy norms have emerged more informally. These have been shaped by historical practices and significantly influenced by Hamiltons understanding of dynamic economic behavior.Contrary to monetary policy‚ which has fairly stable and clear policy objectives (a stable price level and full employment)‚ fiscal-policy objectives are unclear and always changing. This makes the norms that guide policymakers more important.Leeper highlights three fiscal norms. One‚ established in one of Hamiltons 1790 reports‚ is that budget deficits should be followed by budget surpluses (i.e.‚ the government pays off its debts). The second is that ordinary spending should be paid for with taxes while emergency spending can be paid with borrowed funds to be repaid later. The third is that austerity becomes necessary when interest payments on outstanding debt become a sufficiently large fraction of federal expenditures.Despite their informal nature‚ these fiscal norms have historically constrained U.S. fiscal policy in a meaningful way‚ even without a gold standard or other formal devices often found in history. Theyre also important because they determine long-term expectations for fiscal policy. These expectations‚ in turn‚ influence bond prices‚ inflation and the real economy‚ keeping things relatively stable.So far‚ adherence to these informal fiscal norms has paid off. U.S. Treasuries are a cornerstone of the global financial system‚ serving functions akin to money worldwide. However‚ the norms are weakening.While legislators have not abandoned the idea of repaying all the debt‚ they are making decisions that will eventually make it much more difficult. Further‚ since the Great Recession‚ emergency spending financed with debt hasnt spurred the creation of fiscal surplus to repay it. A look at the debt-to-GDP ratio since 2008 shows an upward trajectory with no plans to return to pre-2008 levels.In addition‚ after the roughly $6 trillion in COVID emergency spending and unlike the Obama administration postGreat Recession the Biden administration has not acknowledged the need for austerity. Debt-service costs are going through the roof‚ with interest payments growing to $1 trillion a year and eclipsing defense and Medicare spending‚ yet the administration shows no notable willingness to course correct. In fact‚ as McArdle notes‚ President [Joe] Biden isnt talking about fiscal sanity; hes talking about massive child-care subsidies and about more student debt forgiveness.The fear is that eroding fiscal norms will change investors expectations about being repaid for government debt‚ something that comes with just about every bad economic consequence one can imagine. The breakdown can also affect monetary policy. With federal debt equaling 100 percent of GDP‚ most of it financed through short-term bonds‚ any interest rate hikes dramatically increase the budget deficit. This could affect the Feds ability and willingness to fight inflation with more rate hikes and further debt increases.An ethos of fiscal responsibility and healthy fiscal norms are a big deal. We should lament their erosion.Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists‚ visit the Creators Syndicate website atwww.creators.com.COPYRIGHT 2024CREATORS.COMThe post Americas Fiscal Ethos: From Alexander Hamiltons Day to Our Own appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The news from Moscow is that Russia is likely to abandon the 13 percent flat-rate income tax enacted in 2000‚ not long after a group of visiting conservative/libertarian American economists‚ including me‚ advised newly installed President Vladimir Putin to dramatically lower the countrys income tax. As I pointed out in this space last year‚ Russian economic growth flourished (over 7 percent annual economic growth) in Putins first two terms after the flat tax was adopted. Income tax revenues actually increased sharply‚ as transactions in the vast underground economy dramatically declined as individuals felt they could afford to be honest since the new tax burden was not oppressive. It is the Laffer Curve at work tax rates fall‚ so economic activity dramatically expands‚ increasing tax revenues.Putins predicament has been eased by incredibly inept policies by his adversaries‚ especially the United States.Yet Russia is now suffering from fiscal strain. Its cash and gold reserves are small and declining. Trying to compete with much bigger nations economically‚ like the U.S. and China‚ is straining the economy‚ particularly given Russias territorial ambitions. Some things never change in Russia Putin is Ivan the Terrible (15531584) without the charisma. The war with Ukraine is taking longer than expected and creating a drain on young productive human resources that Russia can ill afford‚ since an extremely low birth rate is producing relatively few war-worthy young men.Increasingly desperate for revenues‚ Putin apparently now is contemplating a progressive income tax. The American experience: The original 1913 tax had a single digit top rate (7 percent)‚ but within a few years the maximum rate hit 77 percent‚ and it has never fallen below 25 percent since. History suggests that‚ like virginity‚ once lost‚ flat-rate or zero income taxation is usually gone forever. And this is very good news for America‚ Russias top adversary. (READ MORE from Richard K. Vedder: Malthus Reversed: The Birth Dearth and Our Future)The experience of the 50 American states is instructive. Looking at Census Bureau estimates of population change from 2020 to 2023‚ we see enormous domestic migration into the nine U.S. states with the ultimate flat-rate state income tax a zero rate. Some 1‚818‚421 persons net moved into those states from states with income taxes. Looking at the six states with top personal tax rates of 9 percent or higher (California‚ Hawaii‚ Minnesota‚ New Jersey‚ New York‚ and Oregon)‚ every single onehad a net out-flow of migrants‚ totaling an extraordinary 2‚362‚181. One of the great out-migrations in human history is occurring unpublicized by our woke media. Interestingly‚ tropical paradise Hawaii with extremely high taxes had a net out-migration of over 40‚000‚ while distinctly more frigid South Dakota gained nearly 20‚000. Also‚ the 12 states with positive flat rates collectively had net in-migration from progressive rate states. Flat rates are loved‚ especially zero rates.Russias 2000 flat tax followed the policy initiatives of Prime Minister Mart Laar of Estonia as well as other Baltic states‚ all of whom have flourished relative to Russia and old large Western welfare states like France and Germany. And then there is Ireland‚ which used low flat-rate corporate income tax policies to trigger a massive income growth that is the envy of Europe.If Russians are like Americans‚ I would expect their move away from flat-rate to progressive taxes will prove quite unpopular. At the margin‚ will it by itself lead to revolt against a long reigning dictator who has gone from desperately flirting with free-market capitalism (Putin I‚ 20002008) to increasingly authoritarian kleptomania (Putin II‚ 20132024)‚ trying to ignore market forces and human nature? Probably not. But in conjunction with other outrages‚ it might shorten Putins already too long political life expectancy.In speaking to conservative legislative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council‚ I frequently joked that the only politician ever to do something that I recommended was Vladimir Putin. He listened and acted not out of awe of the wisdom of me and my colleagues but out of desperation. So likely nudged by his libertarian adviser Andrei Illarionov (now living in America)‚ he concluded‚ What we are doing isnt working‚ and I dont have the resources to restore Russia to its previous glory‚ so I will use what one newspaper called Jesuit methods of managing the economy. It worked! Output nearly doubled in a decade. (READ MORE: Time to Amend the Constitution)Putins predicament has been eased by incredibly inept policies by his adversaries‚ especially the United States‚ whose anti-fossil-fuel policies in the Biden era helped Russia maximize foreign exchange earnings‚ and whose comparative neglect of national defense encourages Russian adventurism. But as Putin ages and Russias population and economy stagnate‚ the current regimes days are numbered.Richard Vedder is Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University and Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute.The post Russian Self-Destruction Helps America appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Metallicas Blackened Whiskey has announced the release of the 24 edition of Rye The Lighting‚ inspired by the bands 6x platinum sophomore album‚ Ride The Lightning. This limited-edition expression follows the highly acclaimed 2022 edition of Rye The Lightning‚ which received Gold from the John Barleycorn Awards and Best Finished Whiskey from Breaking Bourbon. The 24 edition of Rye The Lightning is crafted from a blend of straight rye whiskeys that are vatted and transferred for finishing to Madeira wine and Caribbean rum casks where they undergo the sonic-enhancement process. The post Metallicas Rye The Lightning appeared first on RockinTown.

Cirque du Soleil announced on 4/9 thatThe Beatles Loverun at the former Mirage hotel will come to an end on July 7th. The show has been a fixture on the Strip for 18 years and was the only live show that was licensed to use The Beatles music catalog.The Mirage is in the midst of a renovation following its purchase by Hard Rock Las Vegas. Cirque du Soleil officials say they only learned of the decision late last week. Some 230 cast and crew members will lose their jobs with the closure.This wasnt our decision‚Cirque du SoleilCEO Stphane Lefebvre stated. As you know‚ Hard Rock needs to take control of the entire venue and do some major renovations. So they need to get the show closed by July 7h.The post Were Sorry But Its Time To Go appeared first on RockinTown.

Our public health agencies chose to prioritize a failed policy of reducing the spread rather than reducing the mortality or the lockdown and school and business closure harms‚ which led to unnecessary and avoidable damage to millions of lives.In so many wordsand dataCDC has quietly admitted that all of the indignities of the Covid-19 pandemic management have failed: the masks‚ the distancing‚ the lockdowns‚ the closures‚ and especially the vaccines; all of it failed to control the pandemic.Its not like we didnt know that all this was going to fail‚ because we said so as events unfolded early on in 2020‚ that the public health management of this respiratory virus was almost completely opposite toprinciplesthat had been well established through the influenza period‚ in 2006.The spread of a new virus withreplication factorR0of about 3‚ withmore than one million cases across the countryby April 2020‚ with no potentially virus-sterilizing vaccine in sight for at least several months‚ almost certainly made this infection eventually endemic and universal.Covid-19 starts as an annoying‚ intense‚ uncomfortable flu-like illness‚ and for most people‚ ends uneventfully 2-3 weeks later.Thus‚ management of the Covid-19 pandemic should not have relied upon counts of cases or infections‚ but on numbers of deaths‚ numbers of people hospitalized or with serious long-term outcomes of the infection‚ and of serious health‚ economic‚ and psychological damages caused by the actions and policies made in response to the pandemic‚ in that order of decreasing priorities.Even though numbers of Covid cases correlate with these severe manifestations‚ that is not a justification for case numbers to be used as the actionable measure‚ because Covid-19 infection mortality isestimatedto range below 0.1% in the mean across all ages‚ and post-infection immunity provides a public good in protecting people from severe reinfection outcomes for the great majority who do not get serious long-Covid on first infection.Nevertheless‚ once the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out‚ with a new large wave of the Delta strain spreading across the US in July-August 2021 even after eight months of the vaccines taken by half of Americans‚ instead of admitting policy error that the Covid vaccines do not much control virus spread‚ our public health administration doubled down‚ attempting then to compel vaccination on as many more people as could be threatened by mandates.That didnt work out too well as seen when the large Omicron wave hit the country during December 2021-January 2022 in spite of some 10% more of the population getting vaccinated from September through December of 2021.Survival Shield X-3 is BACK at the Infowars Store! Get 40% OFF on the next evolution in activated nascent iodine HEREA typical mandate example: in September 2021‚ Washington Governor Jay Inslee issuedEmergency Proclamation 21-14.2‚ requiring Covid-19 vaccination for various groups of state workers. In the proclamation‚ the stated goal was‚ WHEREAS‚ COVID-19 vaccines are effective in reducing infection and serious disease‚ and widespread vaccination is the primary means we have as a state to protect everyonefrom COVID-19 infections.That is‚ the stated goal was to reduce thenumber of infections.What the CDC recentlyreported(see chart below)‚ however‚ is that by the end of 2023‚ cumulatively‚ at least 87% of Americans had anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to and thus had been infected with SARS-CoV-2‚ this in spite of the mammoth‚ protracted and booster-repeated vaccination campaign that led to about90% of Americans taking the shots.My argument is that by making policies based on number of infections a higher priority than ones based on the more serious but less common consequences of both infections and policy damages‚ the proclaimed goal of the vaccine mandate to reduce spread failed in that 87% of Americans eventually became infected anyway.In reality‚ neither vaccine immunity nor post-infection immunity were ever able fully to control the spread of the infection. On August 11‚ 2022‚theCDC stated‚ Receipt of a primary series alone‚ in the absence of being up to date with vaccination* through receipt of all recommended booster doses‚ provides minimal protection against infection and transmission (3‚6). Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose‚ although protection can wane over time.Public health pandemic measures that wane over time are very unlikely to be useful for control of infection spread‚ at least without very frequent and impractical revaccinations every few months.Nevertheless‚ infection spread per se is not of consequence‚ because count of infections is not and should not have been the main priority of public health pandemic management.Rather‚ the consequences of the spread and the negative consequences of the policies invoked should have been the priorities.Our public health agencies chose to prioritize a failed policy of reducing the spread rather than reducing the mortality or the lockdown and school and business closure harms‚ which led to unnecessary and avoidable damage to millions of lives.We deserved better from our public health institutions.Alex Jones Responds To Revelation That FBI/CIA Attempted To Silence Him And Shut Down Infowars

With gold still holding near its historic all-time highs‚ central banks led by China are buying the top to fortify themselves against a global monetary and financial blow-up.In investing‚ Buy low‚ sell high is among the most well-known sayings‚ and generally‚ its good advice. But with gold still holding near its historic all-time highs‚central banksled by China are bucking the classic adage and smash-buying more‚ buying the top to fortify themselves against a global monetary and financial blow-up.Last month marked the 17th in a row that thePeoples Bank of China(PBOC) continued stacking gold. Notably‚ the bank typically reports lower numbers than its actual buying volume and is now also introducing a digital yuan to facilitate cross-border gold settlements.The People';s Bank of China announced its gold reserve data for March‚ with an additional 160‚000 ounces of gold reserves added‚ bringing the total reserves to 72.74 million ounces. pic.twitter.com/Ngalymi8nd Bai‚ Xiaojun (@oriental_ghost) April 8‚ 2024Russia is also doubling its reserves of gold and foreign currencies on its de-dollarization path‚ further detaching Russia from the petrodollar empire as it reacts to wartime sanctions from the US and EU. There are other blips on the de-dollarization map as well: though much smaller than Russia and China‚ Zimbabwe has a new gold-backed currency that lets them dump the USD for trade with China and other countries.Chinese citizens are trying to divest as well‚ but from their economy Chinese buying has become so blistering that goldETFs have gone haywire‚ with China repeatedly halting trading as ETFs rocket upward at a gobsmackingly-high premium against physical bullion. It has become increasingly difficult for the Chinese to invest outside of China‚ due to attempts by the regime to keep investments within the country. Citizens are trying to make moves to protect themselves against their perceptions ofdomestic economic uncertainty.Our fan-favorite Turbo Force Plus is now 40% off! See for yourself the delicious one-of-a-kind energy boost infowarriors CRAVE!Meanwhile‚ expectations that the Fed and other Western central banks will be cutting rates this year amidst continuing wars in Ukraine andthe Middle Eastprovide further rocket fuel for the gold price‚ with central bank buying helping it hold its new levelsdespite whatever elseseems to be going on in global markets.A Year of Central Bank Buying:Gold vs USD April 2023 April 2024SourceWhile shorter-term corrections are always to be expected‚ the macro factors support the view that‚ despite its awe-inspiring path upward in the past few months‚ the rally for gold hasnt finished. While inflation isnt contained‚ the Fed is expected to stay the course with planned 2024 rate cuts that willmake dollar weakness even worse. This can only mean higher prices for gold against USD.Reacting to warnings from Bloomerberg about ballooning debt and the powder keg of inflationary pressure‚Peter Schiff said:We have a much bigger problem than they acknowledge thats why the price of gold is at a record high‚ thats why its going to keep going up.With the overstretched and over-indebted American empire increasingly in a state of potentially terminal decline‚ BRICS countries arestacking hard assetswith the hopes of overtaking the West as the next economic superpowers in the coming decades. While they have fiat currencies of their own‚ none have anything resembling the world reserve currency status enjoyed by the USD. Buying the top even as gold continues upward tells a story of their future visions of US dollar chaos.Besides‚ if you expect the dollar to fail‚ as dominant fiat currencies historically have‚ then the top doesnt matter ifthe bottom for fiat is zero‚ then theres no meaningful top for hard assets like gold in fiat terms. And just as you didnt want to be the last schmo holding seashells when no sane person would give you even the tiniest sliver of gold in exchange‚ its wise of central banks to avoid being the last ones trying to trade worthless paper for gold that‚ when fiat is functionally dead‚ will be infinitely more valuable.Because when youzoom out far enough‚ the exchange price of fiat currencies always reverts to its true value of zero.Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System