Advertisement

Here are some selected readings from the left and from the right

 
Published Sept. 24, 2018

We live in a partisan age, and our news habits can reinforce our own perspectives. Consider this an effort to broaden our collective outlook with essays beyond the range of our typical selections.

FROM THE LEFT

From "The Fate and Future of Christine Blasey Ford" by Rafia Zakaria in The Nation at http://bit.ly/2xDOHVa.

The context, from the author: What lies ahead for the women who expose the despicable pasts of powerful men?

The excerpt: For the rest of us not directly in the line of fire, this is an urgent moment of truth. Whether or not (Brett) Kavanaugh will be confirmed will likely depend on whether the de-misogynization of institutions that has been the work of the #MeToo movement has pushed male conservatives in the Senate to consider the political necessity of leaning less toward accused men and more toward victimized women.

From "Trump's Lies Have Grown Far More Frequent — and More Dangerous" by Denise Clifton in Mother Jones at http://bit.ly/2O1f69x.

The context, from the author: Although fact-checkers have dutifully documented President Donald Trump's now more than 5,000 misleading statements and outright lies, the American public may no longer pay much attention to the exhausting flood of misinformation.

The excerpt: This unprecedented behavior from a U.S. president is akin to dumping gasoline on a long-smoldering trend RAND researchers call "Truth Decay": a deepening disagreement over basic facts that is increasingly undercutting the fundamentals of our democracy, from elections to policymaking. When Trump's personal lawyer makes the argument that "truth isn't truth" in Robert Mueller's investigation, or argues that "facts develop" to explain away a shifting story about the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting, this misinformation coming from the highest levels of the U.S. government fuels blind partisanship. And it could potentially leave the public confused and mistrustful during crucial times, from national votes to a national security crisis.

From "UBI, the Unknown Ideal" by Max B. Sawicky in Jacobin Magazine at http://bit.ly/2xykeaW.

The context, from the author: A new book on universal basic income (UBI) argues for us to "give people money." Sounds good. But a lot of old questions about how to do it are still left unanswered.

The excerpt: The UBI's original claim to fame was its purported advantages over a negative income tax (NIT). In contrast to a fixed payment that's identical for everyone, an NIT provides some level of aid that gradually scales down as the recipient's income from other sources rises. The scaling down, or phasing out, has the same implications as a progressive tax on income: the more money you make, the larger the percentage taken back by the government. For this reason, the NIT is seen as creating a disincentive to work. Under a UBI, we are told, that doesn't happen. And yet, in practice, this claim is incorrect.The reason is simple: the government will be obliged to recapture most of a UBI in taxes.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

FROM THE RIGHT

From "Do Democrats Really Believe Christine Blasey Ford Doesn't Have to Prove Her Claims?" by David French in The National Review at http://bit.ly/2xpOYMe.

The context, from the author: At the foundation of our system of justice is the notion that accusers don't just have to state a case against the accused, they have to prove their case. The burden of proof varies depending on the situation.

The excerpt: By conditioning testimony on an FBI investigation, Ford and her Democratic allies are attempting to bring the worst possible form of campus "justice" to the national stage. As of this moment, they are actually seeking to derail a Supreme Court nomination and impugn the nominee's character without a single piece of sworn evidence. Indeed, all the legally binding statements on the matter contradict the accuser. This cannot stand.

From "I Believe Her" by Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic at http://bit.ly/2pwMCa1.

The context: The author was nearly raped by a classmate in high school, but the assailant later twice apologized, felt horrible and made amends. That made a difference.

The excerpt: (His talking to me) was a weird ambush of intense guilt and apology, and it was the wrong place and time — but the thing was, I really did forgive him. My life had moved on, and things were better. It felt good to get the apology and — as it always does — even better to forgive him. He'd done a terrible thing, but he'd done what he could to make it right. I held nothing against him, and I still don't. But if (Christine Blasey) Ford's story is true, Brett Kavanaugh never apologized. He never tried to make amends, never took responsibility for what he did. In my case, the near-rape — as awful as it was at the time and in its immediate aftermath — didn't cause any lasting damage. But by Ford's account, Kavanaugh's acts did cause lasting damage, and he has done nothing at all to try to make that right. And that is why the mistake of a 17-year-old kid still matters.

From "Forgiveness for Kavanaugh But Not Young Drug Offenders?" by Jack Hunter in the American Conservative at http://bit.ly/2xr1if7.

The context: While the author wants Judge Brett Kavanaugh — or someone with the same conservative judicial principles and outlook — to be appointed to the Supreme Court, he wonders why some teens deserve a break and, in the mind of some, others just don't.

The excerpt: "Should anyone be held responsible for crimes committed at 17?" (a conservative columnist) asked. Good question. It's a good question for Reynolds Wintersmith of Illinois, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1994 for selling crack when he was 17. It's a good question for Ronald Evans of Virginia, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1993 at age 19 for non-violent drug charges. It's a good question for Rick Wershe Jr. (portrayed in the new movie White Boy Rick), who was given a life sentence when he was 17 for cocaine possession, becoming Michigan's longest serving juvenile drug offender. The crimes these men committed as teenagers were all non-violent, and they are not alone. Every year, about 10,000 juveniles are incarcerated for non-violent offenses.