Category Archives: culture

Globalism

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Mayor-elect and Progressive-Democrat and Socialist Zohran Mamdani has laid it out quite clearly. In his renewed statement that he would uphold an International Criminal Court (to which the US is not signatory) arrest warrant for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mamdani said this:

I’ve said time and again that I believe this is a city of international law, and being a city of international law means looking to uphold international law[.]

No. New York City is an American city, and so it is bound by American law. And that means that at the city level (at the State level, come to that), international law is irrelevant. In the case of the ICC, this is doubly so. With the US not being a part of the ICC or the treaty that created it, neither the ICC nor any of its warrants or rulings have any standing in the US.

Whatever one thinks of globalism, this is globalism run amok. This is how far to the left the Progressive-Democratic Party has gone.

“The trade in babies and women’s bodies is an affront to freedom.”

Posted on by
Reply

That Wall Street Journal subheadline is about surrogate motherhood and whether it ought be allowed to exist. Lois McLatchie Miller’s lede and next two paragraphs consist of this:

A New York ballroom filled with men discussing how to procure women’s bodies to produce babies, then discharge the mother from her role.
It sounds dystopian, but the September gathering was the latest conference of Men Having Babies, a group that helps gay couples—and single men, and even groups of three that call themselves “throuples”—form families through surrogacy. Online, they post photos of smiling male couples holding infants still slick from their mothers’ birth canals, celebrating a triumph of “modern family building.”
Those newborns know nothing of politics or reproductive technology. They know only the voice and scent of the woman who carried them for nine months—and whom they will never know again.

That truly is terrible, but it’s far from the norm. Surrogacy is broadly employed to provide healthy babies to families unable to have any of their own.

Alternatively, adopt a baby? Certainly. But the adoption, while also broadly beneficial to both the baby and the new parents, doesn’t get the parents a baby of their own blood, their own genetics. Surrogacy opens a path to that, wherein the father’s sperm is combined with the mother’s egg and the result implanted in the surrogate mother. Or a mother’s egg is combined with a sperm bank donor’s sperm and the result either implanted in the mother, or for her health reasons, implanted in a surrogate mother. Or the same with a donor’s egg and the father’s sperm.

The surrogate mother, then, in those cases carries the baby to term and then turns it over to the baby’s parents. That can be wrenching for the surrogate mother, but it isn’t always, and it does allow the surrogate mother to participate in the formation of a loving family. Even in the wrenching, the surrogacy contract takes care of the surrogate mother’s post-delivery needs.

Miller is a Senior Communications Officer at Alliance Defending Freedom International, so she should know better.

What’s necessary is not banning surrogate motherhood, nor even heavy regulation of it. What’s necessary are strong regulation, with heavy sanctions for misbehaviors and civil sanctions for egregious mistakes, of the outcomes. Along with that is the necessity of producing quality information that will allow childless families and prospective surrogate mothers to identify reliable and effective facilities—and each other—so as to allow both sides of the surrogacy to have satisfactory, rewarding outcomes.

Banning surrogacy altogether is what would be truly an affront to freedom. It would be an affront—a denial—of the freedom of families and individuals to decide for themselves how they will approach a family problem.

Don’t Obey Unlawful Orders

Posted on by
Reply

Six Progressive-Democratic Party politicians have published on X a political ad calling on senior military and intelligence officers to disobey unlawful orders. They’re also doing this as though it’s a new concept. They know, full well, though, that obeying unlawful orders has been illegal for decades, if not centuries, and made most famously plain during the Nuremberg trials.

Those six are Senators Elissa Slotkin (D, MI) and Mark Kelly (D, AZ) and Congressmen Jason Crow (D, CO), Maggie Goodlander (D, NH), Chris Deluzio (D, PA), and Chrissy Houlahan (D, PA).

Kelly was challenged on X repeatedly to name the allegedly illegal order(s); he repeatedly refused to do so. Instead, he cowered behind his combat experience and having been “shot at” along with his breathtakingly arrogant claim that he knew what insurrection was, even if his challenger did not.

Congressman Jason Crow was repeatedly asked by Martha MacCallum on her show to name the law(s) that were violated. He repeatedly refused to do so, cowering instead behind cynical evasion and Alinsky-esque attempts to change the subject.

None of the others were willing to identify the order(s) they considered illegal, and they were similarly unwilling to identify the statute(s) or constitutional clause(s) those allegedly illegal orders violated. All they have is this deliberately unsubstantiated, cynical, dishonest conspiracy theory that they’re proselytizing as loudly as they can.

This is, sadly, and dangerously, all too typical of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians. They lost an election they thought was all theirs. They have no policies they believe in enough to put on the table and debate the merits of. Now, these six, cowering behind their intelligence and military service, are spewing the nonsense of smear.

That’s all Party has. That’s what makes it so dangerous.

“individualized, person-to-person acts of political and social resistance”

Posted on by
Reply

Jenna Norton, Program Director of the NIH’s Division of Kidney, Urologic, & Hematologic Diseases, has strongly encouraged, in deed and writings,

“individualized, person-to-person acts of political and social resistance” to stop President Trump and valorizes those “willing to ‘break the law’ when the law is evil.”
“To do nothing is to be complicit in the horrors we are visiting upon the world” and “small, individual acts of noncompliance are also tools that can frustrate great and evil powers[.]”

Such acts, in fact, vary from civil disobedience to outright insubordination.

Civil disobedience, though, demands consequences be applied to the civil disobeyer, else the disobedience is just insubordination, or worse—vandalism or sabotage—with no message of value involved. Insubordination requires its own punishment separately from any attached to claimed civil disobedience.

And so: Norton was put on “non-disciplinary” administrative leave as of 2 pm Thursday [13 November].

She claims

I was not given a reason…but I strongly suspect it is because I have been speaking up in my personal capacity about the harms that I’ve been witnessing[.]

Yet the reason, even if not explicitly stated (and that has not been established), seems obvious; certainly it should be, even to the most ardent, blindered Leftist.

Some—the Left—will decry the evident unfairness of such retaliatory behavior by her employer. They will be, of course, badly mistaken, even as they revel in their Precious dudgeon. Individualized, person-to-person acts of political and social resistance are not limited to one direction. Employers are allowed—and correctly so—to take explicitly individualized, person-to-person acts of resistance against those employees politically and socially resisting them. To that end, employers acting to resist insubordination couched in political and social resistance terms are necessarily acting, in part, politically and socially in their resistance to their employees’ misbehavior.

Indeed, the individualized part is mandated by law, and the person-to-person part is simply optimal business practice. The acts by the employer in such cases also are nothing more than enforcement of the inherent nature of the employer-employee relationship and an emphasis of who works for whom.

“How on Earth is that a Problem?”

Posted on by
Reply

Harvard has awakened to its problem with grade inflation, and the students it has admitted are having their own problem.

A recent internal report found that Harvard is dishing out too many A’s, and that the current undergrad system is “failing to perform the key functions of grading” and “damaging the academic culture of the College more generally.”

In an honest grading system, taking a letter grade scale of A-F, where A is best, F is failing, and C is average, it wouldn’t be the case that a school, much less an allegedly elite one like Harvard, would be dishing out too many A’s. Under such a grading regime, the large majority of grades would be C’s—after all, the majority of a population clusters around some measure of average, whatever the population is. Maybe 10% of students would get A’s and 10% would get F’s. The rest would be roughly evenly distributed between B’s and D’s.

The grades lower than A would (or should) be spurs to work harder and do better. Those getting F’s would be candidates for dropping, or being dropped, out of Harvard and so no longer wasting their parents’ money.

Consider some numbers reflecting the level of effort Harvard’s students put into their classes.

The average time students spend studying outside class has barely changed, from 6.08 hours a week for each of their courses in fall 2006 to 6.3 hours this spring, according to the report by Amanda Claybaugh, Harvard’s dean of undergraduate education.

Let’s assume a heavy class load of four classes, each meeting three times per week for an hour and a half for each meeting. For spring 2025, that works out, according to my run-of-the-mill third grade arithmetic, to some 18 hours per week in the classroom. Those 6.3 hours per week per course on “homework” works out, according to that same arithmetic, to 25.2 hours per week of homework. That sums to 43.2 hours per week on classwork.

That’s an outer bound. When I went to a top-drawer private college, I took four classes per week, but those that met three times per week met for one-hour sessions. The classes with hour-and-a-half sessions met only twice per week.

Oh—the strain.

The nature of the students’ problem is made plain by this plaint from one student:

You admitted these students because they have straight A’s, and now they’re getting a lot of A’s, and it’s, like, “This is a problem.” And I’m thinking, how on earth is that a problem?

What these Precious Ones need to understand is that they’re no longer competing with run-of-the-mill high school students for grades. Now they’re competing with a much higher, much more capable, collection of students, students who really are their peers. It’s a different population than the one of which they were members in high school. Of course the grade definition of “average” has gone up, as has the grade definition of “superior” and “best.”

What Harvard’s managers, and especially its teachers, need to understand is that, after explaining this difference (which should be obvious to the students; they are, after all, the cream of their high school classes), there’s no need to discuss the matter further. The students who can’t handle the new regime of grading—being expected actually to work for their A’s—need simply to be dropped from the school.