Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Jonah Goldberg has been wailing to high heaven that Donald Trump is not a conservative. Here's my question: In what sense, if any, is Goldberg a conservative? Read this. Goldberg all but admits to being a libertarian (a proponent of individual liberty and property rights) and a cosmopolitan. He also implies that conservatism is unconcerned with, or even opposed to, improving the lives of working people. This man suffers from far more than Trump Derangement Syndrome; he's utterly confused about the nature of conservatism. Had Donald Trump not come along, I may never have noticed what a vile character Goldberg is.

I don't know what's worse, Stephen Hawking declaiming on American politics or Stephen Hawking thinking that anyone cares what he thinks about American politics. Lawyers speak of A inciting or soliciting B to commit a crime. Hawkins is inciting or soliciting people to commit a fallacy, to wit:

1. Stephen Hawking is an expert.
2. Stephen Hawking says that Donald Trump is a demagogue; therefore,
3. Donald Trump is a demagogue.

The problem, as anyone with any sense knows, but which intellectuals in their arrogance are prone to ignore, is that expertise doesn't transfer from one field to another. It's actually worse than that for Hawking: competence doesn't transfer, either. It's entirely possible that he is expert in astrophysics but incompetent in American politics (or politics generally). Imagine the howls of laughter if Donald Trump declaimed on astrophysics. Why are people (besides me) not laughing about Stephen Hawking's declamation on American politics? But I return to my earlier point: What boggles the mind is that Hawking thinks that his moral or political views, or his personal preferences, matter to anyone. The man desperately needs a Critical Thinking course.

Jonah Goldberg's case of Trump Derangement Syndrome is getting worse rather than better. He's now policing the boundaries of conservatism. (Who deputized him?) Here's the thing: It doesn't matter whether Donald Trump is a conservative. He's the nominee of the Republican Party and he's the only person standing between Hillary Clinton (not widely regarded as a conservative) and the Oval Office (with Slick Willie in an adjoining room being fellated by White House interns). Nobody needs to make a case for Trump, as Goldberg demands. The case, if one need be made, consists in pointing to Crooked Hillary. Goldberg is positioning himself as the successor to William F. Buckley. This is a joke, because Buckley, in all likelihood, would be supporting Donald Trump as the most conservative candidate still in the race.

Addendum: What really rankles the likes of Goldberg is that they will have no influence in a Trump administration. They will get no cabinet positions, judgeships, or ambassadorships; they will not be hired as aides, pollsters, analysts, staff members, spokespersons, or consultants; they will not be placed on panels and commissions; and, perhaps most importantly, they will not be invited to the White House. They have told Trump in no uncertain terms that they despise him, and they have done everything possible (remember the special issue of National Review entitled "Against Trump"?) to derail his candidacy. Trump has heard these critics loudly and clearly, and we know that he never rewards either opposition or disloyalty. (Nor should he.) How awful it must be to think of oneself as a conservative intellectual, to be in the prime of one's life, to be itching for power, and to have waited eight long years to regain influence on public policy, only to know that one will remain on the outside for at least four and perhaps eight more years. Goldberg has screwed himself, and for what? Stubborn, stupid pride.

We're still in Scotland (currently Perth). Here are five Scottish expressions that differ from their American counterparts:

1. "Mind the gap as you alight from the train."  In the United States, we would say "Watch your step as you depart."
2. "Takeaway" (on a restaurant sign). In the United States, we would say "takeout."
3. "Lift." In the United States, we would say "elevator."
4. "Toilet." In the United States, we would say "bathroom" or "restroom."
5. "Way out" (on a rail-terminal sign, with the words followed by arrow). In the United States, we would say "exit."

There are many others, but this is a sample.

Stephen Marche (whoever that is) writes:

The theory of masculine overcompensation has been well-established for decades, going back to Sigmund Freud’s notions of “reaction formation” and “defense mechanisms:” When men think their masculinity is in doubt, they respond by emphasizing traditional masculine traits.

According to Marche, Donald Trump "represents" masculine overcompensation, for (1) Trump thinks that his masculinity is in doubt and (2) Trump responds to this doubt by emphasizing traditional masculine traits. What about Barack Hussein Obama? His masculinity is in doubt and he does nothing to emphasize traditional masculine traits. This is known as effeminacy. What about Hillary Rodham Clinton? Her masculinity is not in doubt. This is known as mannishness.

Isn't psychoanalysis fun? You can get wherever you want to be from wherever you are, and it costs nothing.

To the editor:

It didn’t take long to spot the word-twisting that the left-wing media engage in so enthusiastically.

The caption under the large picture of Trump and anti-Trump protestors squaring off read in part, “The likely GOP nominee unleashed his anti-immigration vitriol.” Nice try.

Nothing in the Republican Party’s platform or in the presumptive nominee’s policy proposals is “anti-immigration.” We are a nation of immigrants, and that includes my own family. The key word so obviously and regularly excluded is “illegal.”

Wiping that from our lexicon has helped the Democrats. The Times aids and abets that party’s fantasy.

Janet Price, Sherman Oaks

Note from KBJ: Janet Price has not yet learned that, to progressives (i.e., the Left), the end justifies the means. Imagine claiming that someone who is against rape is against sex. That's how dishonest the Left is.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Fliers to Be Kept Waiting for Shorter Lines, T.S.A. Says” (news article, May 26):

The reason for the long lines at our airports is obvious. The Transportation Security Administration is reportedly losing over 100 employees a week and has to replace them to stay at the present employment level, plus add additional employees to handle the long lines at check-in.

The solution is simple: Find out why employees are leaving T.S.A. and fix it. Is it working conditions or compensation, or are many of these employees fired for cause? The root of the problem is employee turnover and employee retention. Fix it and you reduce the long lines at check-in.

JOEL LASKO

Silver Spring, Md.

To the Editor:

I have pre-check and fly once or twice a month. My last two Transportation Security Administration experiences make me question why I spent the $85 for what was supposed to be a speedier check-in process.

Last month, the pre-check line was suddenly closed by T.S.A. agents. When a fellow traveler politely asked why, the agent responded, “It’s on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know.”

Last week, a pre-check line was again suddenly closed. An agent told me that despite the closing, I was still considered pre-check. When I asked how this was considered pre-check if I had to remove my computer and toiletries, he replied, “But you get to keep your shoes on.” I was wearing sandals.

LIZ HARLEY

San Diego

Here.