“Increasingly, I hear Democrats describing [Trump] voters as not simply bad people but evil,” but as “a lifelong leftist type” living on a farm in mostly conservative Greene County, New York, “I keep finding reasons to see my political adversaries as human,” muses Larissa Phillips at The Free Press. “Farming entails emergencies, and so often my neighbors were there to help. It’s hard to care where someone stands on politics when they race to your house to save a dying lamb.” “It worries me” that “Americans who’ve moved since the last election seem to have overwhelmingly chosen neighborhoods” with more people who “share their politics.” This means “fewer Americans will be exposed to the kindness, the sheer humanity, of people who don’t share their political beliefs.”
“Judges should not be making law, but should be interpreting and applying the law as it was written,” fumes Reason’s Billy Binion. A new case involving “a family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI” and then denied the right to sue would “serve as a particularly loud reminder of that.” The FBI “would not find who they came for, because the suspect didn’t live there.” Yet when the victim, Curtrina Martin, sued, “the 11th Circuit gave immunity” to “the leader of the SWAT raid” and denied her the right to sue, citing “the Federal Tort Claims Act.” That’s a switch because, as federal lawmakers have argued, that law was specifically meant to help victims like Martin; the 11th Circuit countermanded it — contravening Congress’ intent.
Christiane Amanpour’s reference to “Israeli occupation forces” — a “derogatory term used by anti-Israel partisans to refer to the Israeli military” — caught the attention of Commentary’s Seth Mandel. Amanpour flung the smear during an interview with a “Palestinian and Israeli filmmaking team who oppose the demolition” of Palestinian structures on an IDF training plot, telling them, “I understand why you would want to film what’s happening to your own villages from the settlers and the Israeli occupation forces.” Fact is, that term is rarely used by mainstream journalists,” and Amanpour’s casual use of it “is a tell. Anyone who changes a subject’s name to a derogatory nickname made up by that subject’s proclaimed enemies is not practicing straight journalism.”
“From 1948 until now,” observes Aris Roussinos at UnHerd, “entire British lifetimes could be spent experiencing only decline.” And PM Keir Starmer’s “Labour government cannot restore the conditions of post-war social democracy because the underlying basis of that economy, a strong domestic manufacturing base, no longer exists” in the UK, thanks to the “de-industrialisation of the North.” That was “a conscious choice made by successive Westminster governments” in favor of “London-centric financialisation and enmeshment in a globalised world economy.” That’s why “austerity, chaos and instability now seem baked into Britain’s near future.” Yet remember that “the sole function of the British state is to maximise the security and prosperity of the British people.” And “when it ceases to do so, it has lost its legitimacy.”
“Two questions face the proposed Vast Haven-2 space station,” notes Mark R. Whittington at The Hill: Is the “concept technically plausible” and will it “be able to make a profit?” Already, the launch technology “has become cheaper and more practical,” and costs will come down with “better design.” “When the ISS goes away, Vast will likely pitch the facility to other government space agencies,” but “the true test of the viability of a commercial space station will be if it can attract private customers.” As costs drop, “the market for access to a commercial space station will expand.” “The first stage of the commercialization of space has occurred in the launch sector. The second stage will, hopefully, consist of gaining knowledge and creating marketable products in space.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board