Tag Archives: culture

‘Unacceptable incompetence’

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the description of CDC performance under the then and continuing management of Rochelle Walensky, the Sobbing Doomsayer.

The CDC found itself hoist with its own petard by making 25 basic statistical and numerical errors related to COVID-19, particularly with regard to children, while purporting to expose COVID vaccine misinformation, according to an analysis led by University of California San Francisco epidemiologists.

And they’re still at it.

…nearly as many [errors] were made in the first two months of 2023 as in all of 2021….

The JtN article went on at considerable length concerning the vast numbers of errors—often dangerous errors, especially for our children—the experts of the CDC committed.

TL;DR summary: the CDC is nothing but a bunch of government bureaucrats who happen to have medical degrees or this or that science degree. Nothing in the CDC, and no words from CDC bureaucrats, can be taken seriously as long as Walensky and her coterie remain in place.

“We Cannot Read…”

Posted on by
Reply

…every book we make available in our libraries…. This is the claim—and he’s actually serious—by Andrew Cluley, Ann Arbor School District spokesperson, in response to queries concerning why his K-12 libraries are blithely adding gender- and “white supremacy”-oriented books to their stacks. The librarians do, supposedly, read the reviews and descriptions carefully.

It’s possibly true—remotely so—that librarians are unable to read, beforehand, all of their book selections to high school libraries. Maybe, though, the school district’s high school librarians should slow down their library additions so they can read their additions, and not simply rely on reviews and descriptions written by others. Firsthand knowledge instead of secondhand claims.

However. How much time does it take to read a grade school book before adding it? What are those librarians doing with their district-paid time that prevents them from personally vetting the books they’re personally adding to their stacks?

It Takes the State

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrat Hillary Clinton’s claim concerning a village’s role in raising our children was an understatement. What the Progressive-Democrats actually mean, is that it takes the State to raise our children and that we parents have only the role the State chooses to grant us from time to time.

A [Washington State] Senate bill on the cusp of a House floor vote would allow homeless youth shelters to avoid notifying parents of runaway children if the juvenile is seeking “gender affirming treatment” or “reproductive health services.”
Senate Bill 5599 sponsored by Senator Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo, would also allow “host homes” to keep runaway children from their parents or legal guardians for the purpose of helping them access “gender affirmation” surgery or medical procedures. The bill cleared the Senate in a 27-19 vote on March 1.

Because Progressive-Democrat Government knows better than us parents how to raise our children, Progressive-Democrats in Washington’s government actively are looking to sanction child mutilation, and to conceal that abuse from the child’s parents.

[D]espite strong public testimony in opposition, the legislation is moving apace through that State’s government. Because the Progressive-Democrat Government even knows better than their employer, the citizens of Washington at large.

The arrogance is what makes that State-sanctioned child abuse possible.

Juice and Squeeze

Posted on by
Reply

In Wednesday’s WSJ Letters Tirien Steinbach, Stanford Law School’s Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, sought to defend her own behavior in the disruption that prevented an invited guest from speaking at all.

She insisted on asking a key question:

We have to…ask ourselves: Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Steinbach blew up her own case with that question, which she also put to the invited guest speaker as she participated in her school’s censorship and cancelation of his speaking.

Free speech juice always and everywhere is worth the squeeze. We have sufficient laws, already, to deal with actual incitement to riot, actual creation of panic in stressful situations, slander, and so on.

The correct and only legitimate answer to speech to which someone or some group objects is speech by that someone or group, or a perhaps more articulate supporter, to contradict or refute the prior.

That Steinbach is oblivious to this demonstrates her unfitness for her role on Stanford’s management team, even her unfitness to retain such licenses to practice law as she might have.

Biden Courts

Posted on by
Reply

Last Wednesday, Magistrate Judge and Biden nominee to a Federal judgeship in the US District Court of Colorado Kato Crews was asked about a legal procedure and then a Supreme Court ruling that any first year law student would have known the answers to. Senator John Kennedy (R, LA) asked Crews

how he would “analyze a Brady motion,” with Crews answering that he had not “had the occasion to address a Brady motion” during his four and a half years on the bench.

Kennedy followed that with a question of whether Crews remembered the Supreme Court case Brady v Maryland and what the case held. Crews:

I believe that the Brady case involved something regarding the Second Amendment. I have not had an occasion to address that.

Here’s a snippet of that exchange.

A Brady motion is a move to require the prosecution in a criminal case to turn over to the defense any information favorable to the defense that the prosecution’s own investigation turns up. The motion is one of the outcomes of Brady v Maryland, which was decided 60 years ago. Those first-year students wouldn’t have had an occasion to address either of those, either, but they would have known the answers, anyway.

This failure comes on the heels of Spokane County Superior Court Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, nominated to a Federal judgeship in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, who could not answer Kennedy’s even more basic questions of Articles V and II of our Constitution do. Neither article, Bjelkengren said, come to mind.

Breathtaking as these two Federal judge nominees’ ignorance about laws, legal procedures, even our Constitution is, what’s far worse is the quality of “judges” President Joe Biden (D) is choosing to nominate to our Federal judicial bench. It’s like the 40-year lawmaker cum President is himself entirely ignorant of American law and of our Constitution. Or like he doesn’t care.