Category Archives: ethics

“Society’s” Needs

Posted on by
Reply

Linn-Mar Community School Board (the district is on the outskirts of Cedar Rapids, IA) member Rachel Wall thinks she knows more about what “society’s needs” are and what should be taught “society’s” children than those children’s parents do. She posted—and she was deadly serious—on Facebook

The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community[.]

That got her enough public pushback, including calls for her resignation, that Wall added a post that she actually insisted was clarifying:

This post has garnered much ire and although I thought the sentiment was clear, it is obvious that’s not the case. Please allow me to clarify. This post doesn’t say that parents don’t matter or that students don’t matter. It doesn’t say that parents shouldn’t be involved or that students shouldn’t be our focus. What it says is that public education is an ecosystem.

Public education is an ecosystem. And she gets to define who the members of her ecosystem are. They plainly do not include the parents. Parents are not, in her exalted view, part of society. Notice, too, that while Wall doesn’t say that parents and students don’t matter, she also doesn’t say that they do matter.

She’ll hear politely what parents say, and then she’ll proceed without further regard. Children are not to be educated, they’re merely tools with which Wall and her cronies intend to mold their version of community. That status as mere tool, of course, makes the children her focus. Who uses a tool without focusing on it?

Please allow me to clarify. Parents are society. Their children are tomorrow’s society. No one is better suited to determine the needs of society today and tomorrow than society’s members: parents today and tomorrow and today’s children grown into tomorrow.

All teachers are qualified to teach is the mechanics of how to operate in society—STEM materials—how we got here—the facts of history—and how we’ll interact with each other—political history and current civics.

Sadly, dangerously, teachers of Wall’s ilk are unqualified even for that, and district managers like Wall are unqualified for anything related to our children.

Tabloid “Journalism”

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times insults it. On the subject of the current debt ceiling discussion, the NYT tweeted

You get an image because just hours later, the NYT cravenly deleted it, and replaced that tweet with this one:

The New York Times @nytimes · 23h
Raising the U.S. debt ceiling has increasingly been used as a political tool by Republicans, leading to intense showdowns in 2011, 2013 and, now, 2023.

But who’s behind the debt itself? Listen to today’s episode of The Daily.

This is the NYT changing what they claimed in order to be more Leftist-politically correct. Even worse, though, is that the “news” outlet deliberately deleted its original tweet IAW its penchant for trying to rewrite history and pretend it hadn’t done what it had done.

The NYT is exceedingly insulting to the tabloid journalism genre of which it tries so hard to be a member.

Whining Mayor Whines Again

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Mayor Eric “Squeaky” Adams (D) is crying now that his sanctuary city, a status of which he claims to be proud, is nearing its breaking point and there is no more room in New York. All because the city of 8.8 million has had an “influx” of 41,000 illegal aliens over the last nine or so months.

41,000. The Del Rio sector of the US-Mexico border, of which Eagle Pass, TX—population 28 thousand—is the primary border-crossing region, had more than 51,000 illegal aliens entering in December 2022 alone.

Adams needs to stop his cry-baby act; he’s embarrassing New Yorkers, if not himself. If he doesn’t want to handle his trickle of illegal aliens, his first step should be to end the city’s sanctuary status.

Who are these Austrians?

Posted on by
Reply

And why do we waste any more time supporting them, for instance via the OECD and OSCE?

In William Nattrass’ op-ed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Poland’s functional ascension to European leadership regarding the barbarian Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he cited a couple of remarks by Austria’s Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg.

Mr Schallenberg had claimed Europe’s “security architecture will have to take Russia into account in future”….

Certainly, since, contra Putin, Russia’s existence isn’t at stake. But with a Ukrainian decisive victory, that future would include a less capable-of-threat Russia.

Schallenberg also was upset that Poland had successfully blocked Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s attendance at a recent OECD meeting.

Mr Schallenberg said Mr Lavrov’s presence would have provided a rare chance for Western politicians to communicate their criticisms directly to the Kremlin.

This is just breathtakingly stupid. It’s almost like Schallenberg doesn’t understand that Russia and Western nations have exchanged embassies.

Hold Off, Guys

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the American “defense” establishment is advising Ukraine now as that nation fights for its existence against the invasion of barbarian Russia. Wait until the new arms transfers, just agreed at a NATO meeting, arrive, those worthies say.

The US has advised Kyiv to hold off on any major counter-offensives against Russian forces in Ukraine until Washington’s latest supply of weaponry and trainings have been provided, a senior White House official said, according to Reuters Saturday.

And

A senior US official told reporters that the US believes Russia will gain an advantage when it comes to a war of attrition and therefore Ukraine needs to change the dynamic on the battlefield.

And

The official did not clarify for how long the US wants Kyiv to hold off on launching a counter-offensive or when Washington will deem Ukraine ready to do so….

That’s…foolish…for a number of reasons.

The US is notoriously slow even to get the promised equipment out the door, let alone delivered into Ukrainian hands. For how long must the Ukrainians “hold off?” These US officials are careful to avoid answering that question.

On the other hand, “Washington” claims to know better than the Ukrainians when Ukraine will be ready to go over to the offensive again. “Washington” Know Betters, after all, are looking from the vantage point of their airconditioned DoD, State, and White House offices. The Ukrainians can only see the whites of the barbarian’s eyes, see the barbarian’s fatigue, the way the winter cold saps the poorly equipped for winter barbarian’s will to fight or the manic rage of Wagner’s horde sitting right across from them. This is just quintessential ugly American arrogance. The Ukrainian forces in the field don’t need to be ready enough to suit “Washington.” They only need to be readier than the barbarian for a winter offensive.

Which brings me to: rather than sitting on the defensive, ceding the initiative, and thereby fighting the war of attrition that Washington is rightly worried about, the best way for the Ukrainians to change the dynamic on the battlefield is precisely to prosecute a winter offensive of their own. Just like they changed the then-dynamic with their Kherson offensive last spring.

Aside: The Pentagon doesn’t want to ship M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. The US has argued its tanks are too costly and difficult to maintain. Then why are they still in our inventory soaking up money and time and soldiers to keep some fraction of them combat ready? At least DoD officials aren’t arguing (publicly, anyway), like the Germans are vis-à-vis their Leopard tank, that the dumb Slavs are just too stupid to learn how to drive a tank.

Another Aside: These Washington officials plainly are projecting their own imperatives onto the Ukrainians. That suggests dangerously meek positions vis-à-vis our own government’s willingness to defend the Republic of China. Or our own nation.