Selwyn Duke

Ben Stein is Right (Sort of): Black Americans Have “Never Had it So Good”

Recently, actor-cum-commentator Ben Stein was condemned in media for touting the “progress” the U.S. has made and saying that black Americans “never had it so good.” One website called his remarks a “racist rant” even though he was, in keeping with his personality, just calmly expressing his opinion. The worst thing about this story, though, isn’t that Stein may become a cancel-culture casualty.

In fact, the matter reminds me of philosopher G.K. Chesterton’s observation that the worst aspect of duels wasn’t that someone might die, but that they settled nothing about who was right or wrong. For as is always the case with these matters, Stein is criticized only for making a politically incorrect assertion involving race — and could suffer reputational and career death because of it — when the real issue is this:

Was he correct or not?

The “Trans”-Fem Debate: The National Version of “My Wife is Always Right”

“A pox on both their houses,” we may say, when wishing both sides in a contest could lose. I surely feel this way, too, with the “transgender” vs. feminist debate over men masquerading as female entering women’s sports and private spaces

Oh, I don’t fence-sit. Not only have I likely written more pieces on preposterous “transgenderism” than most any other commentator, but I even reject the term and coined a more accurate characterization of the phenomenon — the MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status) agenda. Yet I also know this:

While leftists may call that agenda a men’s-rights-movement monster, the foundation for it absolutely was laid by feminists.

Our Little Barbarians

Recently, an establishment called Nettie's House of Spaghetti in New Jersey announced they will no longer allow children under 10 to dine at their restaurant.

The move caused controversy, with some respondents applauding the policy and others accusing Nettie’s staff of being “child haters.” But the top commenter at MSN.com summed the issue up succinctly:

“We don't hate your kids,” she wrote. “We hate your parenting.”

Remembering When Gun Control Was at Least Remotely Rational

A curious mutation in gun control activism occurred during the last few decades, whence began a fixation on something dubbed the "assault rifle.”  Never mind that an assault rifle, insofar as the designation was ever at all valid, had always referenced a weapon with a "select fire” feature allowing three types of operation: semi-automatic, fully-automatic or in three-shot bursts. This doesn't, of course, describe the class of rifles (e.g., AR-15-style) now targeted, whose operation is semi-automatic only (one bullet released per trigger pull), just like 50 percent of all new guns sold. But whatever you call them, here are two facts:

Do We Have to Accept Transgenderism if it's 'Inborn'?

Question: Is the following a good summation of the argument used, starting decades ago, to normalize homosexuality?  "Many researchers [are] taking a different view of homosexuality," a newspaper wrote late last century. "Homosexuality once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change." These "experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality…," the periodical later added. 

Isn’t Drafting Women an Imperative of Equality?

While I used to quip before the millennium’s turn that “I’m a real man of the ’90s — the 1890s,” the truth is that I’m more like Mayberry Meets the Middle Ages. It’s not so much that I hate new ideas (insofar as such things exist) or love old ideas, but that I yearn for eternal ideas. I thus very well could turn back the clock to the days of chivalry, when virtue was exalted and “values” (the term) unknown, faith was fact and “atheism” (the term) unheard, and “equality” was applied only to weights and measures. But while I could, I can’t. This brings me to the matter of women and the draft.

Seared Souls: How We Abuse Our Children

Since I'm going to be criticizing a now widely accepted phenomenon, this piece may evoke eyerolls from some supporters. So be it, because certain things need to be said.  I must confess that with the way many of my fellow adults behave today, it can make me ashamed to be one. I almost sometimes feel as if I want to apologize to the children for the example the contemporary grown-up world now sets. We often lament, and rightly so, how disrespectful many modern youths are, yet a prerequisite for commanding respect is being respectable. There is little respectable about modern American culture. 

The New Voting System That Gave Dems a GOP House Seat is Dangerous. Here’s Why

Alaska’s sole congressional seat, which had been in GOP hands for 49 years, was recently captured by Democrat Mary Peltola. The victory has been touted by liberals as either vindication of their agenda or as portending the end of the career of Sarah Palin, Peltola’s most high-profile opponent. Yet the result, which took weeks to finalize, was easily explainable: It was a function of Alaska’s new ranked-choice voting (RCV) and Top-four Primary (TFP) system — a system electoral engineers would like to institute nationwide. In essence, this system created a situation in which Palin and another Republican, Nick Begich, were both running against Peltola in the general election and divided up the GOP vote.

COVID-shot Echoes: I Had a Most Odd Experience Saturday

In "My troubling COVID vaccine story experiences," I wrote last year about how within a short period of time I met three men at the same recreational area who announced to me they'd had heart attacks. All three had previously taken the coronavirus genetic-therapy agents (GTAs, aka "vaccines"). Add the friend who suffered heart inflammation and the neighbor of mine who had an adverse reaction after having the shots, and it was quite a series of "anomalies." I've had another similar experience now, too. 

COVID Amnesty? How About Unconditional Surrender?

Brown University professor Emily Oster has created quite a stir with her recent article asking for a "pandemic amnesty." In it, she calls for "both sides" in the COVID debate to forgive each other so we can focus on solving current problems. If Oster wanted exposure, she certainly got it, with commentators far and wide responding to her plea. If she wanted to heal wounds and close chasms, however, she failed miserably. Many have told her to go pound sand.  Genuine calls for forgiveness are noble, but, Professor Oster, you (and your critics) miss a significant point here: Forgiveness does not obviate punishment. Were it otherwise, following Jesus's "70×7" prescription would mean emptying the prisons and hurting our beloved children by never holding them accountable for misbehavior.

Circumstantial Evidence of Vote Fraud? 

Yesterday America voted, and there were some rather odd election anomalies — much as there had been in 2020. As for the latter, a bit of history: The winner of Florida, Iowa and Ohio had won the presidency for perhaps as long as the three states have been part of the union and certainly had for 60 years, since Richard Nixon won them but lost an election widely regarded to have been stolen. Donald Trump won all three states by comfortable margins — but "lost" the 2020 election. There also are the 19 bellwether counties that had supported the presidential victor in every contest since 1980, 18 of which Trump won (the one he lost had instituted a new voting system more susceptible to fraud). And now, in 2022, it appears we're seeing anomalies again. 

As Nuclear War Looms: Does Russia Have a Right to its Own Monroe Doctrine?

With news that Israeli intelligence has detected an “irregular presence” of nuclear-capable Russian bombers near Finland and retired general David Petraeus casually saying NATO would likely sink Vladimir Putin’s Black Sea fleet if Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, it’s perhaps time for a few questions: First, can we discuss a situation that could very well result in thermonuclear war — and the end of life as we know it — intelligently and rationally? Or must all questions about our Dr. Strangelove policy be met with childish name-calling (e.g., “stooge of Putin!”) designed to silence debate?

How About Some Real History for a Change?

The video at the bottom of this article was in my YouTube suggestions a while back, and it truly is interesting. It's an audio-book presentation of the testimonial of Fanny Kelly, a woman held captive by American Indians in the 19th century. Titled Narrative of My Captivity Among the Sioux Indians, such material is invaluable because it's not from a textbook compiled by college professors who serve up revisionist history, filtered through the lens of their own biases. It's a firsthand account provided by someone who was actually there.

When Joe Caved to Joe: The Real Manchin Con

Upset and disappointed, many felt betrayed when Senator Joe Manchin cut a deal with ultra-left-wing colleague Chuck Schumer and created the laughably named "Inflation Reduction Act." Yet anyone thus aggrieved should consider a simple fact: As of June 2 of last year, Manchin had voted with Joe Biden 100 percent of the time. That’s 100 percent — as in voting with Nancy Pelosi every time. And he has voted with the Democrats over his career’s course approximately 80 percent of the time.

Roe Woe: Manchin and Collins Violate Their Oaths by Stressing Un-American Stare Decisis 

In the wake of Roe being aborted, some liberal politicians, such as senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.), are crying foul because they claim that SCOTUS justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch deceived them over stare decisis (respect for precedent) during confirmation hearings. What's unsaid is that stare decisis is itself a deception. In fact, our Founders would be aghast at the standard. Why? It's simple: If a precedent clearly conforms to the Constitution, then regard for stare decisis is unnecessary for a precedent-aligned ruling; all a justice need do is reference the Constitution and he'll vote incidentally in accordance with the precedent. 

Tucker Carlson’s Misguided Attack on Republicans

For the record, I believe Fox News host Tucker Carlson is by far the best high-profile TV commentator of our time. I frequently cite him in my news-oriented articles, and his monologues are tours de force. Thus is it notable that I’ve never seen him stumble so badly as on his last Wednesday evening show. Aside from taking at face value a rather portly Google engineer’s claim that a computer he’d been working with, which he calls a “person,” has become sentient (highly improbable at this time), Carlson launched an attack on the Republican Party that, while containing some truth, failed to see the forest for the trees.

When a Conservative is Asked ‘What is a Woman?'

A common way to put Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS, aka "transgender") activists on the spot is to ask them "What is a woman?" They'll hem and haw because their current emotion-based creed dictates that the only possible definition is "anyone who identifies as a woman." Some sexual devolutionaries, however, may come back with what a YouTube commenter under a very clever, topic-related Babylon Bee video claimed. "Let's be real, conservatives do not have a tenable definition of woman," he stated. "[C]onservatives don't talk about their definition of woman — they know it's not good enough." Okay, then, challenge accepted. I'll talk about it:

Why Bill Maher Can’t Kick His Democrat Party Addiction

Comedian-cum-commentator Bill Maher has of late been making some new friends and enemies and raising many an eyebrow. At issue are his Real Time monologues in which he has taken his “side,” the Left, to task for “woke” insanity ranging from canceling people over innocent quips to convincing children they can be the opposite sex to whiny “millennial” entitlement. It reminds many of the #WalkAway movement and of billionaire industrialist Elon Musk’s recent resolution to vote Republican. Nonetheless, Maher never actually becomes “red pilled”; one way or another, he makes clear he’s firmly on the Democrat plantation. There’s a good reason for this, too — a psychological reason.

You REALLY Want Federal Gun Control Intervention? Well, Here's an Idea for You

Word is that the Senate has the necessary votes for federal gun control legislation designed to, among other things, pressure states into instituting "red flag" laws. These measures are controversial because they involve suspending a person's rights (i.e., seizing his weapons) without due process. Wherever you stand on them and federal firearms laws in principle, however, a simple fact is under-emphasized in this debate: Laws mean little if not enforced. 

Is the Left Agitating for War With Russia so it Can Cement Domestic Tyranny?

It has been odd and alarming watching the powers-that-be relentlessly escalate the proxy war our government is waging against Russia. It's not just that we're sending billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, are calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal and issuing other fightin' words, are training Ukrainian troops and are trying to effect Moscow's economic destruction. It's also, senior American officials have now revealed, that via intelligence aid the U.S. has helped to: 

• Kill Moscow's generals; • Down a plane carrying Russian soldiers; and  • Sink one of Putin's warships.