Category Archives: culture

The Racism of the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

It’s demonstrated once again, and disgustingly so, by a law “professor” at the University of Michigan, Barb McQuade, with this post of hers:

By forcing a “colorblind” Constitution, Roberts usurps the proper role of Congress. Congress may limit rights if law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, such as promoting diversity or reducing disparate impact discrimination.

Never mind that—as McQuade must surely know—there is nothing in our Constitution that mentions promoting diversity or reducing disparate impact discrimination. There is, on the other hand, the first Article of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which explicitly bars preferential treatment under any guise. The salient clause mandates equal protection of our laws—of which our Constitution is the supreme Law of our nation. There are exactly zero caveats or exceptions in that clause.

Keep in mind, instead, that McQuade is a member of the erstwhile Democratic Party, now Progressive-Democratic Party

  • that forced a bloody civil war over States’ “rights” to keep slaves
  • that after losing that, created the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate and murder blacks and their white supporters
  • that enacted generations of Jim Crow laws aimed at functionally disenfranchising blacks
  • whose cultural and Party icon, Woodrow Wilson, resegregated the Federal government after it had been integrated in the post bellum decades—blacks should be grateful for the protection of segregation, he held
  • whose next hero, Franklin Roosevelt, enacted national-level minimum wage laws explicitly to keep blacks from migrating north to compete (successfully, as it was turning out) against white laborers on the wages they were willing to accept and who refused to integrate our armed forces
  • that emphasized Party bigotry by expanding it to include sexism with its ongoing zealous push for identity politics
  • that explicitly still(!) holds blacks to be intrinsically inferior by classing them as permanently oppressed and unable to compete at all without special government treatment.

McQuade is far from alone in her racist bigotry, and (tertially) it’s a sad commentary on the degradation of what was once a strong, high quality law school that she’s employed there.

H/T ralflongwalker

It’s Broader than That

Posted on by
Reply

Dominic Green, in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal‘s Free Expression, wrote of the German government’s attempt to censor—to bar from public viewing—a movie that was, by most accounts, badly done schlock (Green’s term). The rationale was that the movie depicted unrepentant and graphic violence by German vigilantes against Germany’s “immigrants,” the illegal aliens present in that nation.

German regulators’ problem with Citizen Vigilante wasn’t its depiction of unspeakable acts, but their unmentionable perpetrators. For years, European governments did their best to deny that mass immigration, notably from majority-Muslim societies, correlated to documented rises in the number of sexual crimes, especially gang rape.

Green closed his piece with this:

We like to think of the arts as our conscience, pushing social problems to our attention. If Europeans must rely on cinéastes of Mr Boll’s caliber to depict Europe’s current problems, it’s because no one else wants to admit their nature and extent.
Mr Boll has illuminated the crisis of political legitimacy and social order that is rapidly unraveling Europe’s peace. His film was censored to keep the peace. That shows the severity of the continent’s crisis, and the fragility of Europe’s peace.

It’s broader in scope than that, though. Government censorship, of nearly anything in any milieu, is a clear and dispositive sign of the intellectual bankruptcy, arrogance of Knowing Better, of cowardice of the politicians and bureaucrats who inflict it. Even the (legitimate) censor of slander is after the fact, not preemptive.

If the citizenry cannot speak freely, they cannot be free. It’s on those citizens in their aggregate—We the People as we put it in the opening phrase of our Constitution—not just individual makers of bad movies or one-off rich idealists, to change out those politicians who would limit our speech.

A Truism, and a Solution

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in Monday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section wrote this while commenting on Alexis de Tocqueville’s praise for our nation’s then-penchant for solving problems locally rather than crying to Mama Government:

A statute can’t manufacture civic energy or entrepreneurial zeal. That has to come from citizens who are politically engaged or not hindered in their efforts to continue the American dream.

That is plainly true. And, pedantically, it echoes Aristotle’s and Plato’s remarks about politics and citizens’ role in it.

The solution is just as plain, and it’s made so by the failing, and increasing depth of the failure, of our public school systems to properly educate our children. We need the competition of school choice, the freely done setup of voucher and charter schools and of homeschooling, whether individually or parents setting up homeschool pods. That competition even improves the performance of local examples of public schools.

That last, though, requires the reduction, if not elimination, of teachers unions, organizations whose management teams care not a farthing about our children, nor even of their teacher members, but only about their own political power.

Guests and Wedding Expenses

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer to Market Watch had this, even as she offered some money-saving tips that he thinks he’s found:

I found I may be in danger of spending close to $7,000 as a wedding guest this year—and that’s while I’m also trying to save up for my own wedding.

That’s just…foolish. Even for the several weddings aggregated that he plans to attend.

As long as enablers like these…guests…keep supporting deliberately ostentatious ego-trip weddings, those costs are only going to rise.

Revolution vs Evolution

Posted on by
1

The opening two paragraphs lay out the question regarding the nature of warfare:

The way wars are fought is changing fast, as new technologies upend military doctrines on everything from procurement to executing operations.
But just how radical will this transformation be in years to come? And are the hundreds of billions of dollars being invested by the US, its allies and rivals in new tanks, planes and warships going to become the equivalent of buying horses and arrows on the eve of machine guns and howitzers?

Germany’s Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, General Carsten Breuer, added to the question:

The character of warfare is changing fundamentally. Armed forces must be able to adapt faster, integrate new technologies, and learn at speed. If we fail to adapt, we will not be able to prevail.

And Michael Kofman of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington:

Revolutions in warfare are often declared but rarely arrive. Most military developments, like the current trends in the use of drones and precision strikes, are evolutionary. Nobody doubts the impact of gunpowder, but it was on the battlefield for hundreds of years, alongside knights and pikemen.

And this:

Military leaders, governments, and defense companies disagree on whether to call the current developments a revolution that warrants a complete overhaul of existing doctrines.

It’s a silly, time- and resource-wasting question. The situation neither demands nor holds unnecessary the idea of completely overhauling existing doctrines. It does, though, demonstrate—demand—the need to completely review, from the ground up de novo all existing doctrines and to do so periodically.

What matters, rather, is this constant: the need to manage and keep up with, even to drive, the pace of change, and that pace today is far faster than that prior rate of moving from pikes and trebuchets to rifles and cannons, far faster than the pace of weapons, logistics, tactics, and strategies during the world’s last major set-piece war, in the last century. The pace, rapidly accelerating, also is expanding into the constitution of warfare and the nature of war itself.

The question of whether we can make necessary changes across all dimensions of conflict, from political to information to economic to cyber to kinetic—and across the logistics and maintenance aspects of each of them—faster than our enemies can then becomes the Critical Item of national survival, as demonstrated from as far back as Alexander the Great and his weapons development and use and his tactics; the Roman way of war compared with that of the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians; and the tactics change demonstrated by the Spanish tercio.

Each of these areas of pacing also has a Do Loop that must be capable of moving apace, from recognition of a situation; through decision regarding how to respond, or better, preempt; to acting on that decision. Our Do Loops—all of them—need to be capable of operating inside of—faster than—our enemies’. If they evolve and adapt faster than we do, then we lose, and they win.

Revolution vs evolution is an irrelevancy.