Monday, September 25, 2017

From Therapy to Happiness

Ever on the lookout for glimpses into therapy, I am grateful to the attentive reader who just sent me this excerpt from New York Magazine’s “Sex Diaries.” The reader prefers to remain anonymous. You will understand why.

Here, it’s all in the juxtaposition. We witness a young woman’s journey from her therapist’s office to home care. We get to see how therapy leads to happiness. 

One appreciates that the writer, who has never had a relationship and has only on the rarest of occasions been on a date, is discussing these matters with her therapist. She might also be discussing her first experience with BDSM, but perhaps not.

She has been doing therapy for over six years. Since she is 23… do the math.

Here is what happens in her therapy session:

8:15 p.m. At my therapist’s. I’ve been seeing him for over six years. The past year we’ve almost exclusively worked on my relationships with men, specifically my tendency to put pressure on guys in order to get some relationship or sign that they like me. Unsurprisingly, that hasn’t worked for me in the past. Lately I’ve gotten a lot better at taking a step back and letting relationships run their course.

Then, here is what she does afterwards, when she gets home and wants to wind down after what was surely an intense therapy session. (Trigger Warning: this is decidedly NSFW):

10 p.m. I get home from therapy and text the Dom a photo of my butt plug. I turn on some porn, lube up my butt plug, and use my vibrator. It is amazing. I fall asleep happy.

You see, therapy has given her a pathway to happiness. I trust that her story brightens your day.

Emma Kelty's Search for Herself

A deluded adventure junky named Emma Kelty set out to find herself by kayaking solo down the 4,000 mile long Amazon river. She was told that it was dangerous. She was told that she would probably be killed. She was impervious to advice. She did it anyway.

Don’t we all know that we can only find ourselves by testing our limits? Don’t we know that we are all alone in the world and that we must learn how to subsist as independent, autonomous individuals? Isn’t it the most therapeutic exercise imaginable… being a woman who conquered the Amazon?

Daily Mail writer Rachel Johnson has a few salient thoughts on Emma Kelty:

I have become mildly obsessed by the horrible fate of Emma Kelty – the 43-year-old former headmistress murdered by river pirates on the Amazon – for reasons that will soon become clear.

I can’t decide: is she a great British heroine cut off in her prime, who wanted to add ‘longest solo kayaking journey ever undertaken by a woman’ to her impressive list of lifetime achievements?

Or was she a selfish nutter on a suicide mission, addicted to the adrenaline and attention generated by a life dedicated to one thing: adventure?

No challenge had ever defeated this daredevil ex-soldier, who relaxed by kickboxing, abseiling, running up mountains, turning round schools, skiing to the South Pole, or hiking across America.

I am slightly more confident than Johnson. Kelty was a fool and she paid for her foolishness.

The late Emma Kelty was clearly made of sterner stuff. But still. Everyone told her she was doomed, even though she already knew. ‘It’s stupid, it’s too dangerous, it’s too risky and I will die,’ she admitted.

On the trip, she blogged: ‘The world is huge and so much more to explore. I wish that others would join me on this way of life.’

No thanks. Especially not after what happened to Emma: attacked by a gang with machetes, tortured, and thrown into the river.

There is a fine line between brave and foolhardy.

I’m afraid she crossed it on this epic and tragic journey in search of herself.

What happened to Emma Kelty? The Telegraph has the story:

Prior to her death she stopped in the village of Sao Joao de Catua on the Solimoes river before embarking on the feared stretch of river after Coari, 100km upstream.

Resident Miliane Vincente told Mailonline they had warned her of the dangers.

"We saw her passing by and called her into the community. I told her it was very dangerous, that it was full of drug trafficking and terrorists," she said.

"I took her to my house and gave her water to drink, and we talked as she showed me her photos. I told her to go with us in our boat to Coari so she wouldn't be in danger.

"I still remember her last words: I can't stay, the more time I stay here the more time I'm losing. For me to succeed I have to do this route. Your hearts are very kind, but I have to carry on."

The Telegraph tells what happened to Emma Kelty:

The man, who didn't want to be named, said: "He said he was one of four men. The woman had put up her tent on the beach in exactly the area where the Colombia drug traffickers go through, and which is crawling with pirates who wait for them to arrive to attack.

"These men aren't pirates though, they are just drug users. We are all shocked that these men from our community did such a terrible thing to this woman.

"When the men saw her tent they thought it belonged to a Colombian with drugs, so they started firing from about 50 metres away. The woman was hit in the arm. She started waving frantically and screaming for help."

He said that when the four men saw that she was a woman they attacked her and, still believing she was carrying drugs, cut off her hair with a knife while demanding to know where the drugs were.

According to the man, one of the group then slit her through with the knife, before all four men "sexually abused her".

He said they then dragged her body to the river and dumped it in the fast-moving water.

He said: "The men fled into the forest after we all found out what they had done. We provided the police with the details and their identities. We're all disgusted by what they have done."

As of now they haven’t found her body. Authorities fear that it was eaten by the piranhas. 

Bernie Sanders on Terrorism

Jewish Americans are up in arms resisting President Donald Trump. They long for the good old days when President Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood, put Iran on a glide path to nuclear weapons and, according to Alan Dershowitz, stabbed Israel in the back at the United Nations. 

Jeremiah Wright’s protégé did not forget the lesson he learned in twenty years at the feet of the hate preacher. And the Democratic National Committee has taken up the torch of anti-Semitic bigotry by making Louis Farrakhan’s protégé its vice chairman.

Today, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America. Being a socialist Sanders holds foreign policy views that are consistent with those of the radical left. He considers Israel an occupying power and wants American policy to tilt toward Iran and away from Saudi Arabia.

Whereas President Trump was greeted warmly in Saudi Arabia by an assembly of the world’s Sunni nations, Iran was using American cash to fund Hamas and Hezbollah. Whereas Israel today is developing the best relations it has ever had with Arab nations, Iran is working to destroy the Jewish state.

The Times of Israel reported the Sanders foreign policy:

US senator and former presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders called for Washington to adopt a friendlier approach to Iran, and said he would consider supporting slashing US aid to Israel over the Jewish state’s policies towards the Palestinians.

In an interview Thursday with The Intercept, the Jewish senator said the US was “complicit” in what he termed Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians, but was not the only guilty party, and urged Washington to play a more fair role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When it comes to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the rap against Trump is that he is pro-Israeli. As it happens, America has for decades tried to be even-handed… and has accomplished nothing.

Naturally, Sanders sympathizes with the Palestinians and believes that America should give them more money. He neglects to mention that Palestinians use foreign aid to fund terrorism by paying off families of terrorists who kill Jews. And he does not mention how much the Palestinians have spent building terror tunnels from Gaza into Israel:

The senator said that there was “extraordinary potential for the United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues.”

When asked if he would “consider voting to reduce US aid to Israel or US arms sales to the Israeli military, Sanders said “the answer is yes.”

Since the Saudis opened their nation to President Trump and accorded him high honors, Sanders hates them. Clearly, he is right that the Saudis have funded terrorism, but they seem also to be changing course. Recent reports had the crown price of Saudi Arabia visiting Israel. As it happens the Saudis despised Barack Obama, a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Iran:

The self-described democratic socialist from Vermont also issued harsh words for Saudi Arabia, saying the desert kingdom is “not an ally” of the US and calling for a “rethink, in terms of American foreign policy… vis-a-vis Iran and Saudi Arabia.”

Sanders said Saudi Arabia is “an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world” and is therefore “not an ally of the United States.”

Despite Saudi Arabia being an “incredibly anti-Democratic” country, Sanders said the US has repeatedly backed Riyadh, while maintaining hostile relations with Iran, “which just held elections” and “whose young people really want to reach out to the West.”

By the Sanders illogic, Iran is a democratic country. Recall what happened in 2009 during the Green Revolution against the ayatollahs. Recall that Obama sat on his hands and allowed the young revolutionaries to be shot down in the street or to be tortured and imprisoned. These facts do not register for Sanders:

While strongly criticizing Saudi Arabia’s support for terrorism through its funding of ultra-conservative Islamic seminaries, Sanders did not address Iran’s material and financial support for a number of terror groups, namely Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian terror group Hamas.

Finally, to cap it off, Sanders says that one of the root causes of terrorism is American drone strikes. The other root cause must be the racist Donald Trump. It's blame America first. You would expect nothing less from the radical left, would you?

In the interview, Sanders also said US drone strikes in which civilians have been killed are one of the “root causes” of terrorism and called US President Donald Trump a “racist” for his efforts to “delegitimize” former US president Barack Obama.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

What Happened to the U. S. Navy?

As you know, the better part of humility is not offering opinions on topics you do not understand. Military preparedness counts among those that your humble blogger does not understand.

The same cannot be said by Ray Starmann, former U. S. Army intelligence officer, founder of the blog, U. S. Defense watch. A few weeks ago Starmann posted about what is wrong with the United States Navy. Considering the Navy’s recent collisions, the question is germane. (via Maggie’s Farm)

I report his analysis. You decide on its value:

It’s not Kim, it’s not China, it’s not Putin and it’s not Dr. No. It’s a lack of training, a lack of focus on what is important and it’s a complete abandonment of the Navy’s and the military’s mission which is to train for war and to win those wars when called upon to do so.

Starmann then made his case. He began with the embarrassing surrender of two Navy speed boats to the Iranian Navy in January 2016. You will notice that this incident took place during the Obama presidency. Could it be that Barack Obama liked to surrender and submit to Iran?

Starmann wrote:

In January 2016, two US Navy high speed Riverine boats from the 5th Fleet were apparently underway from Bahrain to Kuwait when they strayed into Iranian waters, while attempting to contact a vessel to refuel. The Pentagon first said that they had engine trouble. Yet, if that was the case, why didn’t the other boat tow the boat with mechanical problems to international waters and safety?

Then, the Pentagon said that they had navigational issues. How was this possible in 2016, with each boat having an array of GPS and radar equipment? Even if one boat’s systems completely shut down, couldn’t they rely on the other boat’s GPS or radar?

Lieutenant David Nartker, commanding officer of the two US Navy Riverine boats, surrendered his men and his craft with superior firepower to a half dozen Iranian thugs in bass boats that looked like they belonged on Bill Dance’s fishing show. Nartker surrendered without firing so much as a flare. After boarding the Navy boats, Nartker and his men were ordered down on their knees while the Iranians trained machine guns and cameras on them.

Nartker doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on his disgraceful conduct by apologizing to the Iranians for a worldwide TV audience.

And then there was this: a baby was born on an aircraft carrier in September, 2016. You know who was commander in chief at that time:

Last September, a baby was born on the aircraft carrier, the USS  Dwight  David Eisenhower, which is part of the 5th Fleet.

According to the Navy, “As the baby was born at sea aboard an operational unit, the main focus for the U.S. Navy, the ship and its crew is the safety and well being of the baby and the mother,” Cmdr. Bill Urban, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command spokesman, told The Virginian-Pilot. Urban continued – “While it would have been preferred to send her to her home port earlier, per policy, we are now focused on caring for the health and welfare of our Sailor and the newest member of our Navy family,” Urban said.

Absolutely, Commander Urban, the main priority of a Navy ship of war is post natal care. I mean why not, the Navy can’t do anything else right, why not just become a floating maternity ward.

Apparently an incubator, diapers and formula were flown out to the carrier following the baby’s birth.

Rather than blame it all on the Obamafied military, Starmann takes us back to the G. H. W. Bush era, when the Tailhook scandal was skillfully used by feminist radicals to undermine military readiness. One notes that Bush himself, a former fighter pilot, caved to feminist outrage and  sympathized with the victims of the male debauchery, thus fueling the attack on the Navy.

Starmann explained:

In actuality, the Navy has been sliding down the drain for 26 years, ever since the feminist slaughter house called the Tailhook Affair, when hundreds of US Navy and Marine Corps officers, including Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Frank Kelso, were keel-hauled by the Navy for drinking, carousing, indecent conduct and drummed up charges of sexual assault. Imagine that, aviators who drink and get laid; can’t have that in the military.

Tailhook became a catalyst for the left and for feminists to destroy the military through social engineering. As James Webb remarked, “When the Tailhook investigation began, and certain political elements used the incident to bring discredit on naval aviation as a whole, and then on the Navy writ large, one is entitled to ask… Who fought this? Who condemned it? When a whole generation of officers is asked to accept … the destruction of the careers of some of the finest aviators in the Navy based on hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations, in some cases after a full repudiation of anonymous charges that resemble the worst elements of McCarthyism … what admiral has had the courage to risk his own career by putting his stars on the table, and defending the integrity of the process and of its people?”

According to Starmann political correctness has diminished the United States Navy. For those who think, with Joe Biden, that gender diversity will make the military stronger, these events serve as a rebuttal.

Starmann concluded.

Since September of 1991, the Navy has slowly castrated itself with a pen knife, transforming the once proud service into the ill-functioning eunuch of today.

We now have a Navy that can’t fight, can’t navigate, and is largely without basic seamanship skills.

One must ask what the PC revolution has done to help the US Navy fight and win wars?

It’s done nothing except to put people’s lives in danger and to get people killed.

Expect more incompetence, more babies born on ships, more PC lunacy and more general misconduct. The US Navy is a total cluster.

As I said, I report. You decide.

Pushback Against Gender Diversity

Hopefully, you will not be shocked to discover that the rage for gender diversity in Silicon Valley has produced a backlash.

As it happens, diversity initiatives are always double-edged. Long ago Shelby Steele argued that affirmative action programs unfairly stigmatized black applicants who could succeed on their own merits. Once the programs were initiated, every minority candidate was assumed not to have been judged on his merits. In universities minority students were treated differently, as though they did not really belong.

Something similar is happening now in the tech industry. What with James Damore’s screed attacking gender diversity programs in Silicon Valley, the men of Silicon Valley are beginning to organize… and to fight back against what they perceive as unfair treatment afforded to women. 

Not only do they now believe that companies use different criteria in hiring and promoting women, they also understand that women pose a threat to their livelihoods. They have noticed something that men in many other fields have already figured out— a man having a closed-door meeting or even a public dinner with a female associate or subordinate is taking a risk. Today’s enlightened men have concluded that they should no longer associate closely with women staff. Why risk your livelihood in a cultural environment where women are generally considered to be telling the truth about harassment. As it happened, the raised consciousness about sexual harassment has worked to the detriment of working women.

Today, Nellie Bowles reports in the New York Times about the Silicon Valley backlash to gender diversity efforts. One notes that it is also a backlash against the pseudoscience that is buttressing the movement.

The Damore letter is one element among many. Prominent Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg has morphed into a feminist heroine and Yahoo’s former CEO, Marissa Mayer was supposedly giving preference to women in hiring and promotion decisions.

Bowles explains that men are starting to rebel against the oppressive atmosphere in companies infested with groupthink:

While many in the tech industry had previously dismissed the fringe men’s rights arguments, some investors, executives and engineers are now listening. Though studies and surveys show there is no denying the travails women face in the male-dominated industry, some said that the line for what counted as harassment had become too easy to cross and that the push for gender parity was too extreme a goal. Few were willing to talk openly about their thinking, for fear of standing out in largely progressive Silicon Valley.

As mentioned above, the Damore letter caused people to start speaking openly about their objections to feminist orthodoxy. They stood up for science:

After months of apologizing by Silicon Valley for bad behavior, here was a young man [Damore] whom some in tech’s leadership could potentially get behind.

Paul Graham, who founded an influential start-up incubator, Y Combinator, posted two articles about how the science behind Mr. Damore’s memo was accurate. Another start-up investor, John Durant, wrote that “Charles Darwin himself would be fired from Google for his views on the sexes.”

And the investor Peter Thiel’s business partner, Eric Weinstein, tweeted, “Dear @Google, Stop teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR.”

People like Damore have even dared challenge the canard that diversity makes for a more efficient workplace:

This turn in the gender conversation is good news for Mr. Damore. “The emperor is naked,” he said in an interview. “Since someone said it, now it’s become sort of acceptable.”

He added, “The whole idea that diversity improves workplace output, it’s not scientifically decided that that’s true.”

As for Yahoo, we know that Marissa Mayer did not prove to be a very effective or competent CEO. She did not save the company. In fact, the company, such as it was, no longer exists.

Mayer’s diversity initiatives diminished workplace morale and caused some men sue for discrimination:

Two men who worked at Yahoo sued the company for gender discrimination last year. Their lawyer, Jon Parsons, said the female leadership — Yahoo’s chief executive was Marissa Mayer, before Verizon bought the company — had gone too far in trying to hire and promote women. He tied the suit into today’s women-in-tech movement.

“When you’re on a mission from God to set the world straight, it’s easy to go too far,” Mr. Parsons said. “There was no control over women hiring women.”

He said that his clients, Greg Anderson and Scott Ard, had faced gender discrimination in Yahoo’s media teams and that other teams like cars were headed by women, which to Mr. Parsons was a sign of problems.

“No eyebrows are going to rise if a woman heads up fashion,” Mr. Parsons said. “But we’re talking about women staffing positions — things like autos — where it cannot be explained other than manipulation.”

In truth, if gender diversity will greatly improve tech companies the companies need but try it. Perhaps they will become world beaters. Perhaps not. At least they will allow the market to decide. And they will stop forcing themselves to hire less competent candidates in order to fill diversity quotas—thus damaging employee morale and causing more jobs to be shipped out of the country.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Is Capitalism Dying?

For your edification, I present a few remarks by famed economic historian Niall Ferguson. Interviewed for an audio documentary on the health of capitalism, Ferguson addressed a number of important issues in political economy. The link will take you to the video itself. For our purposes, I quote the transcript. I take full responsibility for the questions: they may be slightly different from the interviewer's, but they provide some narrative connective tissue.

Question 1: Was the Trump election a rejection of capitalism?


In recent elections we didn’t see a rejection of capitalism. The victory of Donald Trump, in particular, was the election of a capitalist to the highest office in US politics. Trump’s critique wasn’t of capitalism but of globalisation and its various manifestations – notably free trade as it has been constituted and immigration, and out-sourcing. The backlash we have seen from within certain advanced democracies has largely been against a globalisation that occurred too quickly, and without adequate checks and balances – rather than a reaction against the economic system that overcame socialism in the 1980s.

Capitalism is one thing. Free trade and globalization are others. It’s one thing to be against free trade and quite another to be against the way certain trade deals were negotiated.

Question 2: Why has unionization declined?

The decline of unionisation doesn’t explain falling wages at bottom end – it’s simply a reflection of declining demand for unskilled labour, especially in developed countries. Most deserving of blame are the education systems in developed countries – the US & UK in particular – where, despite more and more taxpayers’ money being spent, rates of literacy and numeracy are actually going backwards for large numbers of children. National governments are simply failing to prepare their citizens for the new economy and research by Raj Chetty, a colleague at Stanford, shows the significant contribution of bad schools and bad teachers to widening inequality in US.

Our educational systems have failed to produce workers who are capable of doing the more technical jobs that are now being offered. America has a bad schools and bad teacher problem. We are not, he suggests, going to fix it by increasing the power of unions. Certainly, not by empowering the teachers' unions.

Question 3: What’s wrong with western economies?


As I argued in The Great Degeneration, the current weakness of much of the western world isn’t rooted in capitalism but in fundamental weaknesses of the State – including its structural fiscal deficits, complex and burdensome regulation, and world-trailing public services, where even some gains in public health are being reversed. State failure is not capitalism’s fault – but the fault of inadequate politicians, ineffective public administrators and and public sector unions that are too powerful.

Then again, if you work for the government or if you believe that we need government to control greedy predatory capitalists you will never find fault with government. Ferguson retorts that the problem lies with the state and with the public sector unions that control the bureaucracy.

Question 4: What lessons did we learn from the market crash in 2008?


We’re learning precisely the wrong lessons from the crash by embracing the “silly” but easily understood argument that we need more regulation. The crash of ten years ago began in the part of the financial sector – the banks – where regulations existed “in profusion”. The crash didn’t come from the largely-unregulated hedge funs, who worried regulators before the events of 2007 and 2008. Because the regulations were so complex the banks gamed them. 

And also:

The real explanation for the crash lies in the cosy relationship with the State that the complex regulations brought about. Banks were able to behave as recklessly as they did because they calculated (correctly in all cases but Lehmans) that they were too big for the State to let them fail. Although friends of capitalism have this more accurate explanation for the crash – of excessive closeness between regulators, politicians and the banks on Wall Street and in the City of London, the “fairy story” put about by the likes of Paul Krugman, that it was all about deregulated markets has gained credibility because it’s simple. The result is, since the crash, we’ve learnt precisely the wrong lesson and enacted enormous amounts of extra regulation – which is, at best, “besides the point” and, at worst, damaging and encouraging of moral hazard.

We understand that politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are making a very good living by promoting more regulation of banks and markets. Ferguson makes the salient point, namely that the crash and great recession arose in the hyper-regulated banks, not in the far less regulated hedge fund industry. He adds that the multitude of regulations caused the banks to game the system. Twas always thus. As Confucius said, over-regulation dulls the moral sense.

Question 5: Is capitalism in crisis?


The big problem is not that capitalism is in crisis (because it’s not). The big problem is that socialism is making a comeback. Fed by the post-crash narrative, younger voters, who have no memory of the economic troubles of 1970s and the turnaround of the 1980s, are ready to embrace Jeremy Corbyn and his promises of jam tomorrow, jam the day after and regulations to stop anything and everything they don’t like. You only need to spend a day studying economic history, or the current economic breakdown in Venezuela to realise the danger he represents

One recalls the old song: When will they ever learn? When will Western progressives get over their love affair with socialism? Communism failed and failed miserably. Cuba has failed. Venezuela is in a death spiral. Yet, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders want to give us more socialism.

They are addressing themselves to an economically illiterate millennial generation, a generation that knows nothing of history but that believes itself entitled to a living without working too much or too hard.

Good luck with that.

Valerie Plame's Anti-Semitism

In case you forgot, Valerie Plame was a CIA officer who gained fame and fortune for having been outed by the Bush administration. Instantly, she became a hero to the left. Anti-Bush politicians used her as a cudgel to beat up Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other administration figures. Because, all's fair when you are fighting Republicans. As it happened the person who outed her to journalist Robert Novak was Richard Armitage. Since he was considered a good guy no one cared.

She the incident Plame moved on to become a bundler for Hillary Clinton and has cast herself as a leader of the Resistance to Donald Trump.

The Washington Examiner has Plame’s story:

A young beltway socialite, Plame was catapulted to stardom in 2003 when her name appeared in a Washington Post column. While working as a CIA operations officer, according to conservative columnist Robert Novak, she had recommended sending her husband, a former ambassador, to investigate the production of yellowcake uranium in Niger.

The Left accused the Bush White House of outing Plame in the press as retribution for her husband's opposition to the war. (It came out much later that Novak had actually learned about her involvement from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.) She was cast as a victim, becoming a cause célèbre overnight. She was quoted, booked on television, and handed a book deal.

Plame's star faded when Bush left office and she found other pursuits. Recently she was a bundler for Hillary Clinton's ill-fated presidential campaign and launched a campaign to buy Twitter in-order to delete President Trump's account.

Now, in a story you will not read in the New York Times or any mainstream media outlet, it turns out that Plame is a flaming anti-Semite.

Plame recently retweeted a link to an article entitled from “America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars.”

Naturally, Plame responded by saying that it was an honest mistake. The Washington Examiner looked into the matter and discovered that it was all part of a pattern:

An especially embarrassing gaffe for a veteran intelligence analyst, the article in question asserted, among other things, that Jews "own the media," that Jewish people should wear labels while on national television, and that their beliefs are as dangerous as "a bottle of rat poison."

One doesn't need training in espionage though to recognize the bigotry of the piece. One also doesn't need to be some sort of covert agent to recognize the flimsiness of her excuse.

While Plame insists that she was unfamiliar with the source of the bigoted article, a quick search shows that she frequents the website and often shares its content. Since 2014, Plame has posted nine UNZ articles including one titled "Why I Still Dislike Israel" and another about "Dancing Israelis" on 9/11.

Think about it, a leftist media darling exposed as an anti-Semite. Who could have imagined that the party of Jeremiah Wright’s protégé and Louis Farrakhan’s protégé and Al Sharpton could attract and glorify anti-Semites. We are now awaiting progressive politicians expressing their outrage. You know, the ones who insist that all Republicans denounce David Duke and other alt-right figures.