Tag Archives: morality

NYT’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Performance

Posted on by
Reply

Now The New York Times is pushing the wokeness of gender “alteration” and associated child abuse directly to children. New York Times for Kids is a section aimed directly at children ages 8-13—prebuscent children up through children whose hormones are starting into an uproar as their bodies begin to change from a child’s to an adult’s body. The current rendition of this section includes things like

…suggest[ing] finding a “supportive space with friends or a counselor” to “let you safely explore what feels best, like changes to your name, pronouns, or style of dress.” This process of making outward gender changes is often referred to as social transitioning.

And

“Trans kids in trouble.” … “Healthcare for transgender kids has been in the news a lot,” lamenting that “at least 15 states have banned treatment for gender dysphoria.” It went on to tell readers, “The laws keep trans kids from getting the treatments they need. But experts are clear: Access to care saves trans kids’ lives.”

And

One article [in the section], headlined “When it doesn’t feel right,” talked about what to do about gender dysphoria. A doctor explained, “I’ve had a good number of young people describe it as having really intense feelings of anger, sadness, or insecurity about themselves or their bodies.”

Which, in particular, is nothing more than that hormonal uproar.

This section is disgusting even for tabloid journalism. The paper of record? Say, rather, the paper my cat wouldn’t tolerate under her litter box.

This will be the last time I reference this…outlet…by name. My blog may be meager, but I decline to give this birdcage reject any further air time or space.

Politely

Posted on by
Reply

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas lost his appeal from a Federal district court’s injunction blocking DHS from implementing a policy that allows for the release of migrants into the US without court dates. The Appellate Court summarized (within my own summary) Mayorkas’ plaint [italics added]:

As to irreparable injury, [DHS argued among other things]…”The most immediate consequence of the [District Court’s] orders,” according to DHS, “will likely be [the] overcrowding [of] CBP facilities during increases in border encounters,” which would threaten the “health, safety, and security” of USBP officers and aliens.

The Appellate Court wrote in part:

To start, DHS’s claims of irreparable injury ring somewhat hollow on this record, considering the department’s track record of overstating similar threats in the underlying proceedings. For instance, on January 12, 2023, DHS represented to the district court that any vacatur of the Parole+ATD policy would result in “disastrous consequences” for the management of the border starting the very next day. DHS made the same representation again on February 16, 2023. But, in truth, CBP had stopped using the Parole+ATD practices as of January 2, 2023, and DHS now admits that it was able to “manage[] its detention capacity [since January] using many other tools at its disposal.” The department’s ability to ascertain future harm is uncertain at best. Given this record, we take DHS’s latest claims of impending disaster if it is not allowed to use either of the challenged policies with some skepticism.

And

Recent data from the border casts further doubt on DHS’s irreparable-injury argument. Contrary to DHS’s catastrophic predictions, the number of daily encounters with aliens did not surge in the days following the expiration of the Title 42 order on May 11, 2023, but instead fell significantly. Compare Doc. 13-1 ¶ 11 in No. 23-cv-09962 (predicting a daily average of 12,000–14,000 encounters), with Doc. 28 at 4 in No. 23-cv-09962 (showing that the number of encounters dropped from 9,649 on May 11, 2023, to 4,193 on May 14). DHS has neither explained how that data is consistent with its representations nor provided any more recent data demonstrating a surge in illegal crossings at the border. This Court will not find irreparable harm based on mere conjecture.

This is the court calling Mayorkas—politely, mind you, and with the circumlocutions for which courts are well-known—a liar. Which he is. Now the case, State of Florida v United States of America, et al., will finish its wending through our courts with the block on blanket release without any requirement to show up in court remaining in place.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling (nearly unanimous; one judge concurred in part and dissented in part) can be read here. It’s a breathtakingly terse dismissal of Mayorkas’ dishonesty.

Banning the Bible in Schools

Posted on by
Reply

The Davis School District, Utah’s second largest for public schools, has decided to ban the Bible from its elementary and junior high schools, retaining it only in district high school libraries.

The district’s officials aren’t even claiming the transparent fig leaf of separation of church and state for the ban. The Bible is out because of its vulgarity or violence. It’s true enough that the Bible has what some might consider vulgarity—all those begets and begots, even incidents like one man in a leadership role sending a rival off to war to be killed so the one could have the other’s wife for himself.

And that violence—all those wars, David so violently killing Goliath, the mass killing of Pharoah’s army in the Red Sea; sacrificing animals; the violence just goes on and on.

What’s the next set of books to be banned from the Utah district’s children’s tender minds?

History books, of course. History is rife with the violence of war and all those killings, destructions of whole nations, slavery, rape. There’s the vulgarity, too, of those rapes: the Sabine women, the rapes of slave women, the literal rape of Nanking, comfort women; the incestuous behavior of royals who married each other’s women for the sake of politics; one king’s serial use and abuse of his wives—these make up just a few examples.

This is the Left, infesting even Utah’s schools.

Aiding and Abetting?

Posted on by
Reply

Acting as an accessory?

Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald is defending with a straight face his decision to fire two employees who, while thieves were robbing a Lululemon store, verbally objected to the thefts, filmed the thieves in the act, and called the police.

McDonald insists that employees should “let the theft occur.” He went on:

We put the safety of our team, of our guests, front and center. It’s only merchandise. They’re trained to step back, let the theft occur, know that there’s technology and there’s cameras and we’re working with law enforcement.

This is, to use the technical term, a crock. The employees he fired used cameras—the ones in their cell phones—and they worked with law enforcement—they called the cops on the thieves.

Stepping back and letting the theft occur: that puts the safety of Lululemon employees front and center how, exactly? Allowing the crimes to occur unhindered only makes Lululemon stores—and other stores in the immediate area—even more susceptible to crime. And that endangers even more store employees and those customers who are present when criminals accept the McDonalds of the nation’s invitations.

I report. You decide. Or something like that.

Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, has provided a canonical example. Now he’s pretending to be upset by a graduation speech by a City University of New York School of Law graduate that was itself as bigoted as the anti-Semitic speaker.

We cannot allow words of negativity and divisiveness to be the only ones our students hear[.]

This from the man who deliberately, with conscious racism, accused a border State governor of racism for transporting illegal aliens—who volunteered for the trip—to sanctuary cities like the one over which he reigns.

His virtue-signaling is deeply offensive.