REDHUGO-H 2

Fox, Margalit. "Arthur R. Jensen Dies at 89; Set Off Debate About I.Q." The New
     York Times, 1 Nov. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/science/
     arthur-r-jensen-who-set-off-debate-on-iq-dies.html. Accessed 22 Mar. 2020.

Margalit Fox details the significance of the late Arthur Jensen's life and career in this strangely controversial obituary. Jensen is most known for his 1969 work titled How Much Can We Boost IQ
and Scholastic Achievement? which sparked outrage on campuses across an America in full swing with the Civil Rights Era. Fox credits Jensen with effectively reviving the racial cognition debate in America and contributing to similar works decades later such as The Bell Curve. Beyond this, she even delves into the history and aspects of the intelligence debate, directly referencing ideas such as general intelligence, denoted as "g" (Fox). However, as she is still writing in the context of an obituary, Fox returns her article to Jensen and includes comments from both his supporters and critics in order to highlight that despite his controversial career, he was still an apt and important social scientist. Nonetheless, it is clear that Jensen's posthumous attention can be attributed to the significance of his lasting mark on the academic world.

Jensen, Arthur Robert. "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?"
     Harvard Educational Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 1969, pp. 1-123. APA
     PsycNet, doi:10.17763/haer.39.1.l3u15956627424k7. Accessed 22 Mar.
     2020.

Arthur Jensen's most famous and controversial work, How Much Can We Boost IQ
and Scholastic Achievement?, was published in 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review. Despite being in such an elite journal, Jensen tackles many issues that psychologists and social scientists of the time had struggled with, mostly taking unorthodox stances regarding potential racial genetic groups and their effects on intelligence. Being backed by numerous studies and scraps of data, Jensen calls for his peers to consider the possible relationships between race, genetics, and intelligence (Jensen). As this article managed to immediately spark near-unprecedented controversy in the academic world, Jensen forever became associated with this work for both better and worse. As other famous related works cited Jensen's studies, he is often credited with reviving the race and intelligence debate in America. The response has been both praise from certain self-imposed "free thinkers" and social scientists as well as claims of racism from "anti-hate" organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. In every aspect, this work remains a cornerstone of academic dissent in American history.

REDHUGO-H 1

"Forced Sterilization." Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, edited by John Hartwell
     Moore, vol. 1, Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 483-86. Gale in
     Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2831200159/
     UHIC?u=lap17ehs&sid=UHIC&xid=5a9613a2. Accessed 21 Mar. 2020.

This article serves as a comprehensive reference point for the general history of eugenics. With eugenicists often being directly involved in the history of racial, genetic, and psychological research in the western world, it goes without saying that understanding the origins and effects of eugenics is imperative to understanding the development of racial intelligence research. The article covers several modern examples as well in order to establish lines of contrast and to support its argument of the unethical practices exemplified by events that modern audiences are more familiar with. More significantly, however, it more closely details the influence of eugenics in the United States, directly referencing the supposedly "mentally defective" victims of state-mandated sterilization ("Forced"). By uncovering some darker memories of America's past, the article effectively establishes points of reference and potential caveats for the audience's understanding of race and intelligence.

LeFrancois, Arthur G. "Skinner V. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)."
     Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by David
     S. Tanenhaus, vol. 4, Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 409-10.
     Gale in Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3241200924/
     UHIC?u=lap17ehs&sid=UHIC&xid=1a479412. Accessed 21 Mar. 2020.

LeFrancois covers one of the most significant US Supreme Court cases to date in this history lesson-turned-ethics discussion. In addition to giving the expected context of the case itself, the author goes into unexpected detail regarding the history of eugenics in America, contributing to his credibility as an evaluator of the results of the case. With the author also referencing the relationship between eugenics and anti-miscegenation laws, he ties the case to a larger conversation on race and intelligence. He then moves on to analyze the larger social and political context of the case and how it affected the ruling (LeFrancois). By providing a commentary on the legal precedents set by Skinner v. Oklahoma in the context of ethical relations to the Constitution, LeFrancois provides insight into the conclusion of the eugenics chapter in American history.

REDHUGO Reading 2-2

          As the authors continue in their slower, smoother approach to persuasion as the book approaches Part IV, not only have their methods of argumentation changed, but the nature of their claims have as well. While it is perhaps a more subtle change from the beginning of Part III, it is nonetheless a significant one in Herrnstein and Murray's most controversial-yet-successful piece, The Bell Curve. In contrast with the former half of the book, the authors generally used a consistent formula in their arguments: laying context, making a claim, then providing and analyzing data. While it may seem like an approach similar to that of a high schooler's, it remained effective for most of the book's earlier topics, as the reader is expected to now view in hindsight as simply for contextual purposes. Now, rather than simply stating a flat claim, the authors first inject more personal, hidden insight into the topic. Sometimes it takes the form of more recent data that the authors have discovered, while at others it may simply be a new revelation that they both haven't discussed yet and expect the audience to themselves have not yet had. As a result, claims are more smoothly interwoven in the authors' discussions of topics and relevant evidence while still remaining fairly explicit. As long as the audience themselves are able to notice this, the impact of the authors' arguments is naturally strengthened.
          The primary caveat that a majority of the audience would have with such a change in Herrnstein and Murray's argumentative style, however, is a correlated change in the book's overall persuasive impact. While its earlier parts were not particularly repetitive or poorly-argued, there remains a very noticeable style change from Part II to Part III that continues to become more apparent as it approaches its final section. While upon his/her first reflection, the reader may appreciate such a change of pace, style, and thus impact, at some point, it may also cause the reader to develop a disdain for the authors' reluctance to employ such changes earlier in their work. Thus in hindsight, the difference in the effectiveness of the book's two halves is seemingly too drastic for a well-organized study.
         

REDHUGO Reading 2-1

         In keeping with The Bell Curve's theme, Herrnstein and Murray use the latter half of the book to start tackling its main contentions with full force. With the noticeably increased use of data, graphics, and less convoluted arguments, the authors have begun the main course of this work in classic sociologist fashion. By laying out the bread and butter in the former half, the authors can finally begin to get into the weeds of what initially made this work so controversial for its time. The so-called "radical notions" that The Bell Curve is known for among mainstream social scientists are unraveled in Part III, as Herrnstein and Murray use all the context that they spent several hundred pages building in order to finally take a stronger, more unorthodox stance. As such, they naturally are forced to support such enthusiasm with a more outstanding approach to argument-building, doubling down on the use and analysis of data, which they now have to validate more carefully than ever.
          The authors, however, refrain from simply throwing lobs of complex, eye-straining graphs and charts at the reader. Instead, while they certainly attempt to satisfy the reader's statistical appetite, Herrnstein and Murray take meticulous steps in their persuasive methodology, as they are well aware of the ilk of their arguments. While 1994 may seem like a point in the distant past in comparison to today's advancements, the social climate is not nearly so different as ours is now. With this in mind, the authors clearly understand that they must choose their words carefully and reinforce not only their arguments but also their evidence in a way that evokes as least criticism as possible, as their claims themselves will have already done enough in that regard.

Speaking of Race Podcast Review

Speaking of Race: Race and Intelligence

Part 1

Part 2

          Speaking of Race is a year-and-a-half-long project by the University of Alabama where three professors get together and discover the history of race through podcasts. Their four-part series about race and intelligence explores the history of eugenics, intelligence testing, and the lasting debates about the possibilities of genetics links between racial groups and general intelligence. Immediately, however, the hosts take a clear stance, claiming that intelligence has thus far been impossible to fairly or comprehensively quantify, and they even note that its future research is likely to remain unfruitful. As they are all professors of science, anthropology, and the like, their credibility as hosts is significant, and it is obvious that they expect their audience to be aware of such through repeated references to their experience and education. Thus, their bold historical claims and biased implications are intended to be met with serious consideration.

          Such aforementioned historical "claims" are frequent, though often unexplained. Much of the podcast consists of the hosts reading off of a script, telling narratives about the history of the scientific community's foray into intelligence research. With personal anecdotes, quotes, and light comments occasionally thrown into the mix, the hosts keep the program restricted and tightly-organized, rarely forming genuine discussions involving the clashing of ideas and the models of debate. Perhaps this format was intended to disguise the program as one that is purely informative and unbiased, but unfortunately, such a possibility is voided by the hosts' likely unintentional implications. By repeatedly referencing well-known historical figures and emphasizing the little-known facts to disparage their reputations, the hosts show clear intentions in forming the opinions of the audience. With constant labels of "racism" thrown at figures with either unclear or nonexistent premises, the hosts not only belittle the social intelligence of their listeners but also promote close-minded views of academic dissent.

REDHUGO Reading 1-2

          The use of visuals is to be expected in a work involving the study of statistics, and thus Murray and Herrnstein often remind the reader of the significance behind The Bell Curve's namesake. Using numerous varieties of charts, graphs, tables, and all else of the ilk, the authors frequently attempt to break down abstract concepts using visual aids. Simply stating that the wages of less-educated workers have decreased significantly has a far less powerful effect than letting the reader see the discrepancies of the numbers side-by-side. Likewise, the "bell curve" that is the namesake of the book cannot have the same impact without first being able to visualize such a graphic. Thus, the author's visuals serve an integral part in not only attracting audiences but also in reinforcing statistical claims.
          Ironically, however, it is far beyond the scope of any social scientist to be able to find a universal, comprehensive graphic that can accurately portray any single factor in society or in the class system. The basis for Murray and Herrnstein's work is tackling each factor individually and in natural succession, laying statistical foundations and then proceeding to prove their significance. As a result, however, this method often backfires on the authors when they appear to be obstructed by a phenomenon of probability, where exceptions, plot outliers, and multiple uncontrollable factors are in play at once. These instances, while usually acknowledged by the authors, can result in disengagement from the reader, and so certain uses of visual aid in the book have been critiqued as void of logical significance.

REDHUGO Reading 1-1

         Murray and Herrnstein waste no space in diving straight into their points in The Bell Curve. From the first few pages alone, the reader is immediately exposed to a series of historical narratives, statistical jargon, and the politics of psychometrics. Their method for laying the foundation of their argument is perhaps unnecessarily extended, but it nonetheless provides all the relevant context needed to take the whole of society into scope. The first of the book's four parts explains the modern evolution of class in America. Taking into account its trends and consequential impacts, the reader is foreshadowed to significant potential links between the disputed heritability of intelligence and its all-encompassing impacts. By introducing their audience to what is an immediately recognizable and heavily debated staple in American society, Murray and Herrnstein aptly appeal to the reader's assumed contextual background as well as their personal role in the factors in question.
          The nuance to the authors' approach is relatively subtle, yet it still remains significant. Even in the preface and introduction to the book, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the intended audience is not assumed to be one commonly associated with readers of the book. While the authors don't hesitate in throwing relatively advanced content at the reader, they take a slower, methodological approach in introducing such. They use a basic skeleton of first: assuming the reader is aware of any common knowledge relevant to the topic (i.e. the visual trend of correlation), second: further reinforcing the clarity of such relevance, and third: relating new ideas to the current skeleton. Depending on the topic, the authors also use a variety of well-known historical or political entities in order to appeal to the reader's personal knowledge or potential interests. This skeleton is cloned repeatedly throughout the book, thus potentially resulting in a loss of engagement from the reader, but the authors' discussions simultaneously progress in complexity.

November/December W4: Man Sentenced to 6 Months for Eating a Cookie Is Released

Leila Ettachfini

"Man Sentenced to 6 Months for Eating a Cookie Is Released"

"A judge reversed Gregory Fields' six-month sentence on Monday, but his lawyer says similarly disproportionate sentences are nothing unusual."

Vice, December 9, 2019

          The criminal justice system in America has long been a topic of debate, with the civil rights era only pushing it further into the spotlight. Leila Ettachfini takes a look at a more peculiar case from earlier this year, one that involved a man of color and his unjust sentence. While most critics of the racial inequities of the justice system might look towards police brutality or other, clearer examples of a violent or oppressive nature, Ettachfini instead uses a case that involves rather trivial circumstances but a profound message. The aforementioned defendant, a man of color undergoing rehabilitation, was charged with a crime so petty that it is questionable whether or not it should have gone to the courts in the first place. However, the verdict came out to be a prison sentence of six months, which he and his lawyer declared ridiculous, disproportionate, and unjust. While the author fails to give much more context than this, she notes that the judge overturned the ruling, which would suggest that the fault more likely lies with the courts in this situation. Ettachfini primarily highlights the defendant's grievances and his struggle to resist his prosecution, adding to the empathetic strength of her argument. By looking instead to a nonviolent criminal case involving a minority, the author attempts to expose the injustices of the system by revealing a case that points to the universal oppression of certain groups in the American justice system, as the evidence presented suggests that minorities are disadvantaged even in petty cases. However, the lack of specific context and the absence of an acknowledgment of alternative stances or perspectives constitute this piece's primary flaws, as the author fails to consider any speculations regarding a similar case involving different racial groups.

November/December W3: Dell Has Made $15 Million Working with ICE This Year

Leila Ettachfini

"Dell Has Made $15 Million Working with ICE This Year"

"Yet the company says it supports "comprehensive immigration reform.""

Vice, November 22, 2019

          With the ever-popular "humanitarian crisis" at the southern border that remains a subject of heated discussion among left-wing journalists, Ettachfini and several others have recently been uncovering the business partnerships between certain large companies and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the primarily-blamed culprit for the aforementioned crisis. In this case, Ettachfini attacks Dell, using their seemingly-contradictory statements as evidence for their hypocrisy in working with ICE. Using specific sources and pieces of evidence, the author outlines Dell's history with the immigration agency and utilizes a statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a kind of credible source. Thus, the audience is able to immediately recognize the major flaw in the author's attempt to establish credibility, as the SPLC is an organization with a controversial history and is still involved in major efforts to polarize social issues in America. Additionally, the author references some of her past articles and those of her peers in order to draw parallels between Dell's actions and those of other large corporations, specifically those dealing in IT and technology. Throughout the piece, the author's tone remains assertive and aggressive, as Ettachfini takes care to thoroughly detail each piece of relevant evidence, especially those that weaken the stability of Dell's defense. The author even includes an update at the end that describes the company's same-day response to the publication of her article. Through these, Ettachfini establishes her aggressive tone and methodical argumentation to her audience in an appealing attempt to gain traction as a pundit.

November/December W2: CBP Refused to Let Me and Other Doctors Give Migrants Flu Shots for Free

Leila Ettachfini

"CBP Refused to Let Me and Other Doctors Give Migrants Flu Shots for Free"

""We thought, 'How can they deny it if it's not going to cost them anything?'" Dr. Julie Sierra told VICE."

Vice, November 22, 2019

          Leila Ettachfini takes a look at the southern border and the heated controversies that surround it by detailing a personal account of a certain group's attempts in dealing with Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In an interview with Vice, Dr. Julie Sierra from Doctors for Camp Closure gives explanations and context in her communications with CBP regarding vaccination of migrants and asylum seekers. With the article's clear exigence being the recent flu-related deaths of three migrant children while under CBP custody, the author uses the interview with Dr. Sierra and statements from the CBP regarding its policy in order to expose the flaws in the CBP's system and place upon them the blame for the children's deaths. While the interview constitutes a majority of the article's content, the author carefully introduced Doctors for Camp Closure before selecting specific portions of the interview to include, mostly being details about the group's actions and motives. Much of the piece's argument lies entirely within the words of Dr. Sierra rather than the author, but Ettachfini still includes pieces of supporting numerical evidence in order to impact the context with which the audience will interpret the interview. Regardless of the audience's prior knowledge or preconceptions about the "border crisis" (either one of them), the author writes with precision, only presenting facts relevant to her argument while leaving the rest up to the audience's purposefully-influenced interpretation of the interview. 

November/December W1: Freedom of Religion Doesn't Exist If People Are Afraid to Wear Symbols of Their Faith

Leila Ettachfini

"Freedom of Religion Doesn't Exist If People Are Afraid to Wear Symbols of Their Faith"

"A third of Jews in the U.S. have “avoided publicly wearing, carrying, or displaying things that might help people identify” them as Jewish, according to a new poll. What kind of freedom is that?"

Vice, October 23, 2019

          With the release of a recent poll, it was found that roughly a third of the American Jewish population avoids "publicly wearing, carrying, or displaying things that might help people identify" them as Jewish. The poll, released by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), along with the recent one-year anniversary of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, is the clearest exigence for this piece, as it primarily serves as a response to the new findings. Ettachfini, a Muslim, also details a personal anecdote regarding the Christchurch shootings in New Zealand to support her argument that while the government is primarily no longer involved in the oppression of minority religious groups, "anti-Semitic" and "islamophobic" sentiments in the U.S. have been on the rise, especially since the election of 2016. Despite the words of politicians that condemn international oppression of religious freedoms, the author claims that they do little to stop domestic de facto oppression and violence. Putting aside the historic questionability of the AJC and the ADL, Ettachfini still provides other pieces of hard, reliable evidence, mainly from current events and FBI databases. However, while the author is primarily concerned with minority religious groups, she fails to acknowledge the rising negative sentiments towards more dominant religious groups in America. In addition, she pulls evidence from groups that have actively worked to condemn Christian churches, organizations, and political parties internationally without addressing the fact. It is reasonable, however, to suggest a simple lack of knowledge, and so the benefit of the doubt is fairly given. As such, Ettachfini provides a brief yet still complete argument that effectively combines reason and emotion.

October/November 2019 Monthly Project: Why Progressives Should Choose Anna North

Why You Should Choose Anna North

Have You Been Interested in Social Politics Lately?

Are You Looking For a Distinguished and Consistent Progressive Author?

Do You Appreciate Less Banter and More Substance in Your Media?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, then consider yourself a part of Anna North's target audience.

Ms. North is currently a Senior Reporter at Vox, writing mainly on current events and covering issues of gender and social justice. However, you may also know her from her previous positions at the New York Times or Buzzfeed. Even if you're not an active political reader, you may still have seen her name before if you're a fan of dystopian fiction or Game of Thrones, as she's authored works of fiction such as America Pacifica and The Life and Death of Sophie Stark. Additionally, her next novel, Outlawed, a fictional narrative of a feminist midwife in the Wild West, is slated to release in 2021 and is complete with the same explicitly political undertones of her previous works.

If you're more interested in her nonfictional political writings, though, you should be able to get a feel of her style and ideological leanings from the linked articles that I've analyzed below:

 "“Nervous Nancy” tweet shows his problem with powerful women" - A criticism of President Trump's behaviors and remarks towards women in politics.

"These laws were meant to protect people from HIV. They’ve only increased stigma and abuse." - A detailed look at the history and consequences of HIV laws around the nation.

"“Failed” abortions, a period-tracking spreadsheet, and the last clinic standing: the controversy in Missouri, explained" - A summary of a recent development in the abortion debate.

"A new Trump administration rule could hurt LGBTQ youth in foster care" - A speculative and concerned criticism of the foster care system.

The modern progressive media is lost without writers like North. Her consistent emphasis on facts and hard evidence over excessively emotional argumentation presents her in a light that shines brighter than the rest to most readers in the modern context of journalism. While you'll find the same, familiar stances and views that you see in most new-age American progressives, you may find new ways to look at issues and argue either for or against them. The degree to which you may or may not agree with her arguments is irrelevant. Instead, her confident--yet still unhesitantly polarizing--styles of argument development should catch your interest, for she tends to expose the side of progressive journalists you may not always see.

October/November 2019 W4: A new Trump administration rule could hurt LGBTQ youth in foster care

Anna North

"A new Trump administration rule could hurt LGBTQ youth in foster care"

" The proposal is part of a bigger pattern."

Vox, November 7, 2019

          The White House recently proposed a new rule regarding discrimination against gender identity and sexual orientation in programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Anna North breaks down the new rule, emphasizing its potential effects on affected foster care programs. The rule removes certain language from the previous administration's policies that would now allow certain HHS-funded programs to be exempt from laws protecting discrimination against gender identities and sexual orientations. As it was praised by many for upholding religious freedoms, North claims that it would have an adverse effect on children in the foster care system, especially those of LGBTQ identities. Her primary reasoning is that certain programs would not allow non-Christian or same-sex couples to adopt, thus keeping kids in poor facilities longer and likely sending more to juvenile correctional institutions. Another potential outcome comes through the absence of protection for LGBTQ kids who are introduced into the system, as North claims that foster care programs under the new rule could legally turn away kids of LGBTQ identity from entering under their jurisdiction. She uses statistical data to support her claims of the disproportionality of adoption for same-sex couples, but much of North's persuasive tactics lie in her emotional detailing of a personal story of a student who grew up in a poor foster care facility. Being of Liberian descent, a Muslim, and a homosexual, North uses her as an example of the potential cruelty that foster care programs could act with regarding children of certain identities. As with much of her work, North relies heavily upon assumption and speculation, and so flaws naturally find themselves standing out in such logical processes. Nevertheless, she effectively and thoroughly compiles many relevant facts to validate her perspective, though she is unable to acknowledge or subsequently refute the stances that may invalidate her reason throughout the piece.

October 2019 W3: “Failed” abortions, a period-tracking spreadsheet, and the last clinic standing: the controversy in Missouri, explained

Anna North

"“Failed” abortions, a period-tracking spreadsheet, and the last clinic standing: the controversy in Missouri, explained"

"Hearings will determine if Missouri will be the first state without an abortion clinic."

Vox, October 31, 2019

          Anna North breaks down the most recent national abortion controversy in this convoluted narrative. In essence, the issue at hand involves health officials in Missouri tracking the menstrual data of abortion patients in order to investigate the possibilities of failed abortion procedures. The controversy comes from several recent actions from abortion opponents across the nation that are similar in vein, as abortion activists and doctors alike perceive the new trend as an attack on women's reproductive rights. North outlines their main concerns by tieing the developments in Missouri to those at the federal level, as pro-life politicians seek to impose more control over and restrictions on abortion clinics. As seen in many of her informative essays, there is a notable amount of reason and statistical data that lies in North's arguments. She effectively supports claims of the relative safeness of the procedure that exists in the majority of licensed abortion clinics through hard evidence, and she is fond of using the words of well-known personalities to her advantage. While it is kept to a minimum, there still naturally exists some form of emotional appeal, as North uses a sort of last-ditch attempt to victimize abortion doctors, implying that they are simply innocent, hard-working members of society. Regardless of the moral truth, North's stances remain clearer than typically seen in her pieces, though that might only further show her understanding of her audience and rhetorical situation. 

October 2019 W2: These laws were meant to protect people from HIV. They’ve only increased stigma and abuse.

Anna North

"These laws were meant to protect people from HIV. They’ve only increased stigma and abuse."

"Laws in many states make it a crime to have sex without disclosing your HIV status. Advocates say they may actually worsen the spread of the virus."

Vox, October 10, 2019

          In this informative piece, Anna North details the history of HIV laws around the country, beginning with their inception in the '80s and tracking their effects since then that have extended into the present day. North primarily highlights the consequences of said laws and covers negative reactions to them. While she fails to present a clear argument or line of reasoning, she still weaves elements of persuasion into her continuing development of the narrative, a theme common to many of her columns. Nevertheless, she is unafraid to reveal her biases, as she describes claims and pieces of evidence that are exclusive to a single stance. Such aspects take the form of legal history, statistical studies, and personal stories of those affected by HIV laws. In essence, her "argument" is that the current commonplace HIV laws, that were created out of fear and stigmatization of those with the disease, have accomplished little to prevent its spread, and they may have even fueled it. However, North looks through a narrow lens, as she irrationally makes the assumption that her audience holds the same beliefs as she does about how promiscuity impacts society and cultural values. Additionally, she makes several smaller claims that aren't elaborated on and therefore cannot be argued for effectively, including the notion that certain groups experience worse social oppression for their medical condition than others, or that there aren't scientific reasons to explain why certain sexualities have disproportionate levels of HIV compared to others. Admittedly, however, North is able to forcefully emulate emotions of compassion and empathy that contribute significantly to the success of her persuasive strategies. While there are more than a few flaws in her lines of reasoning, this article should remain a point of intrigue and discussion among readers. 

October 2019 W1: Trump’s “Nervous Nancy” tweet shows his problem with powerful women

Anna North

"Trump’s “Nervous Nancy” tweet shows his problem with powerful women"

"Trump tried to shame Nancy Pelosi by tweeting a photo of their meeting. It backfired."

Vox, October 17, 2019

          President Trump recently made a tweet that contained an ad hominem attack on the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, including a picture of her standing up and "chastising" the President during a foreign policy meeting. Unexpectedly, however, many took to Twitter to defend Pelosi and spread the image to fire back at the President. Anna North commentates on this new, yet unsurprising, Twitter drama among the most powerful people in the country. North expands on the retaliation against President Trump by arguing for his consistent "misogynistic" behavior, utilizing examples from his past business and political careers, as well as much of his internet rhetoric. She criticizes his frequent and childish personal attacks on political opponents, especially women, claiming that his experience in male-dominated careers leaves him with a strong personality of "toxic masculinity." 

          North's own criticisms, however, ironically closely resemble the very kind that she is demeaning in this article. While name-calling, jokes about physicality, and other such insults used by the men and women in this laughable and increasingly-childish political climate (with much credit owed to the culture of the digital age), are absent from her language, North doesn't hesitate to call out the President's past remarks as cowardly and to classify him as a "bully" of sorts. Her approach is one that further fuels the adolescent style of social interaction and civil discussion among politicians and journalists in the modern era. The merit in her arguments are seemingly valid at face-value, but her strategy of antagonizing the President whilst glorifying Pelosi and other female politicians by similarly-irrelevant reasons model a less-appealing form of journalism. 

September 2019 Monthly Project: A Reader's Guide to Kevin D. Williamson

Your Complete Guide to Kevin D. Williamson

Cred. Pete Marovich

Kevin Daniel Williamson is an active conservative political commentator and journalist from Texas. He's worked for several newspapers, including The Bulletin, National Review (where he now serves as its roving correspondent), and even The Atlantic briefly. He's contributed to institutions such as The King's College and the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University and is the author of seven books, the most recent of which is The Smallest Minority: Independent Thinking in the Age of Mob Politics, published in July of this year. Below are links to reviews and analyses of a few of his most recent opinion articles as seen in National Review.

"Playing God" - An analysis of the "religious progressivist" movement in America.
"Back Off from the ‘Resist’ Nonsense" - A critique of the immoderate voices that cry wolf.
"The Divine Right of the Democratic Party" - An insight into elitest-fueled polarization.
"What’s Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Gambit?" - An opinion piece on the modern contexts of presidential impeachment.

Cred Reddit user u/slavjanskimapperars

As you might have guessed from the pieces detailed above, Williamson is best described as a right-wing fusionist. Through both his implicit and explicit expressions of opinion, it is often difficult for the reader to discern whether he is more of a libertarian or a conservative thinker; in actuality, he is a little of both. He is firmly pro-life, pro-2A, anti-centralized government, and wildly pro-markets. While he is moderately right-leaning on the social spectrum, he is expressly anti-interventionist and pro-free trade, distasteful of government regulations and "nationalist economics," distancing himself from traditional conservatives. At the same time, however, he is not afraid to disagree with his libertarian colleagues, and it can often appear that he is even more critical of his more closely-related ideologues than his more distanced ones.

Williamson is a seasoned veteran of the world of journalism. His notable experience in the media, involvement in modern political literature, and national recognition (mostly by his journalist counterparts) should make it clear to anyone, regardless of political preference, that his sphere of influence is hard to ignore.

September 2019 W4: What’s Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Gambit?

Kevin D. Williamson

"What’s Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Gambit?"
"They think anytime a Republican is elected president, there must have been something 'illegitimate' going on."
National Review, September 26, 2019
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/trump-impeachment-inquiry-democrats-refuse-to-accept-republican-electoral-victory/

          Kevin Williamson introduces his very first take on the Whistleblower scandal with contextually significant pieces of information about his own beliefs and biases about the current President of the United States. Following this, he takes a brief and objective look at the American structure of the Presidency and its varying public reactions. Despite the pure objectivity and neutrality that the concept of impeachment exhibits, however, Williamson turns it into a partisan attack on the Democrats for their actions and words as both a force in national politics and as a model for American democracy in the past 20 years. He does, however, make logical connections between the contexts of current events now and those of years past, as well as a reasonable political analysis that anyone who lives in a democracy should be able to understand. These applications of logos mostly compensate for the general turn-off of a piece of journalism that this would otherwise be, as it is safe to assume that most Americans are exhausted of the back-and-forth, empty ad hominem attacks that modern journalists rely on as a source of financial support and career experience. What Williamson fails to include, however, is a recognition of an opposing argument. He makes an implicit claim at the end of the text that boils down to a statement that Republicans will be likely to act in similar ways when placed in a similar situation as the Democrats are in now, but after just having denounced all of these tactics that the Democrats have employed, it seems Williamson fails to eliminate a possible hypocritical interpretation of his argument. Without having read his other articles and critiques, it is impossible for the reader to know that Williamson is also often critical of the Republican party for following in the Democrats' footsteps, and so the reader is left without sufficient information to draw positive conclusions about the validity of Williamson's argument.

September 2019 W3: The Divine Right of the Democratic Party

Kevin D. Williamson

"The Divine Right of the Democratic Party"

"Some progressives do not think we have two legitimate competing political camps. They think the U.S. is suffering from an infection: the Republican party."
National Review, September 11, 2019
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/democrats-dream-of-nation-without-republicans/

          Williamson develops a counterattack in this piece to Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times, who has expressed desires to see the Republican Party disintegrate. Rather than defending the GOP itself, however, Williamson takes a broader approach and seeks to defend the American public. He does not praise the Republican Party, and in fact, he describes it in a rather unflattering manner, and so he looks instead at the successes of the Republican Party and how conservative America has influenced them. He claims that it is not Republicans who have gained success and that the Democrats and progressives despise, it is the collective conservative American public that is behind the flipside of polarized politics. No matter the party that represents them in the future, Williamson states, an attack on America's conservative interests in society will not be a matter of partisan discourse, but rather it will manifest itself as a disdain for political opposition.
          While Williamson fails to discuss the relevance of political civility in this piece--and one could argue that he does little more than only further disgrace it--he nevertheless utilizes strong argumentary tools to formulate a compelling essay. In a (positive) turn of events, he is able to reference real statistical data and relevant current events as primary pieces of support in a surprisingly coherent fashion. However, it is important to note that the tone of the essay is all-too-familiar in the world of new-age journalism. The apparent exigence for this piece is not one that feels particularly mature, nor is this column as a whole seemingly relevant or helpful in discussing politics in any professional manner. Still, for casual readers, it is an interesting (but perhaps redundant, for some) opinion on the hidden implications of partisan-fueled and politically-dishonorable American journalism.

September 2019 W2: Back Off from the ‘Resist’ Nonsense

Kevin D. Williamson

"Back Off from the ‘Resist’ Nonsense"

"Perhaps we should back off from the Third Reich analogies and begin to take our duties as citizens seriously."

National Review, September 15, 2019

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/resistance-politics-degrades-civic-life/

          Once again, Williamson's latest hot take of the week is a fiery jab at elitist left-wing America. Rather than poking fun at one specific individual or occurrence, however, he decides to take a closer look at the "Resist" movement that has taken America by storm since November of 2016 and analyze its effects and consequences henceforth. To give sufficient context, the aforementioned political movement is centered around the "resistance" to the actions and behaviors of our current President of the United States. With that said, I must applaud Williamson for taking a much more mature stance in this piece by abstaining from a childish and defensive reaction--typical of most popular political writing in the modern era--and instead relying on the truths of political theory and societal stipulations to support his argumentary appeals. While he remains liberal in his use of humor and sarcasm, it comes much more sparingly in this piece compared to his last, and they no longer consist of his argument's main support. Instead, his use of historical context and comparative evidence makes for a much more compelling form of journalistic political discourse.